104. The Commission alleged that the State’s arguments were not preliminary in nature, because deciding them involved aspects related to the merits of the case. B.2. Considerations of the Court 105. The Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that are distinct from those included in the said report, without prejudice to describing facts that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court’s consideration (also called “complementary facts”). 73 The exception to this principle are facts that can be classified as supervening and, provided they are connected to the facts of the case, these may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of the judgment. 74 106. The Court has also considered that it does not have to rule on the factual framework of the case in a preliminary manner, because the analysis of this corresponds to the merits of the case. 75 107. Based on the foregoing, in this case the State’s arguments must be rejected as preliminary issues. When the facts of the case are determined based on the factual framework established in the Merits report and the existing evidence, the factual elements questioned by the State may explain or clarify those facts. The Court will also decide whether it is admissible to examine certain facts in the corresponding sections. 108. Consequently, it is not incumbent on the Court to make a preliminary ruling on the matters raised by the State. VI EVIDENCE 109. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will determine the admissibility of the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements and testimony provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, and the helpful evidence requested by the Court. It will also decide on the incorporation of evidence ex officio, and the admission of the evidence on supervening facts. 110. Regarding reception of evidence, the Court has established that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings, and that the incorporation of certain elements of the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties. 76 73 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. v. Chile (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), para. 39. 74 Mutatis mutandi, Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, para. 154; Case of Pacheco Tineo v. Bolivia, para. 21, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 27. 75 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260 para. 25, and Case of Pacheco Tineo v. Bolivia, para. 24. 76 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 65, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 79. 33