31. First, with regard to the press release by the Homosexual Movement of Lima on February 11, 2004, concerning Mr. Olivera’s expulsion from a gym for expressing his sexual orientation, the Court notes that these facts were not mentioned by the Commission in its Merits Report. Therefore, this press report and the facts to which it refers have no direct link with the factual framework defined by the Commission and must be excluded from the analysis of the treaty violations alleged by the representatives. 32. Secondly, in relation to the Reporte Semanal television program of August 17, 2004, the Court notes that this did form part of the factual framework defined by the Commission, inasmuch as these facts were explicitly mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20 and 22 of the Merits Report. 27 Thus, in the section concerning the legal basis, the InterAmerican Commission expressly alludes to this television program as an element of evidence to assess the violations alleged by Mr. Olivera Fuentes: Finally, the Commission points out that on August 17, 2004, the alleged victim went to another commercial center of the same company, accompanied by a heterosexual couple and again engaged in affectionate behavior; however, only the alleged victim and his partner were reprimanded for expressing such behavior. 28 33. In view of the above, the Court will exclude the facts and evidence concerning Mr. Olivera’s expulsion from a gym, which led to the publication of a press release by the Homosexual Movement of Lima on February 11, 2004. However, the Court will analyze the facts contained in the report of the Reporte Semanal television program of August 17, 2004. B. The alleged undue inclusion in the pleadings and motions brief of rights allegedly violated B.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 34. The State argued that the representatives had included in their pleadings and motions brief claims for alleged violations of Articles 7 (Right to liberty) and 13 (Right to freedom of expression) of the American Convention, despite the fact that these alleged violations were not considered by the Commission in its Merits Report. It added that, although the representatives may invoke in their pleadings and motions brief human rights violations other than those included in the Merits Report, “this prerogative has a limitation that prevents them from invoking new facts” and that in the instant case they had sought to “accuse the Peruvian State of generalized acts of ‘repression,’ aimed at making invisible the gender expression of the LGBTI population.” 27 In those specific paragraphs the Commission describes the analysis carried out by the national authorities on the admissibility of said television program as evidence of discriminatory treatment. 28 Cf. IACHR, Case Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Merits Report No. 304/20, of October 29, 2020, para.47. 13