(also called “complementary facts”).22 The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, which may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of the judgment, provided that they are related to the facts of the case.23 The said report also provides the framework for the legal arguments and the claims for reparations. 24 22. Thus, the possibility of changing or varying the legal classification of the facts that are the object of a specific case is permitted during proceedings under the inter-American system, and this is reflected clearly in the Court’s consistent case law, according to which the presumed victims and their representatives may assert the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided they remain within the factual framework,25 because the presumed victims possess all the rights recognized in the Convention.26 In sum, it is for the Court to decide in each case on the admissibility of arguments relating to the factual framework, safeguarding the procedural balance between the parties.27 However, based on the adversarial principle, the discussion on the factual issues must be reflected in the Merits Report. 23. In application of the preceding criteria, it is clear that, within the factual framework of the case, the Court may analyze the alleged failure to comply with or the violation of Articles 2, 5(1) and 5(2) (as regards the right to physical integrity), 9 and 17 of the Convention asserted by the representatives, irrespective of whether the Commission concluded in its Merits Report that the State was responsible for their violation or non-compliance, or whether the Commission considered it unnecessary to rule in this regard. 24. Furthermore, the Court has considered that it does not have to rule in a preliminary manner on the factual framework of the case, because this analysis corresponds to the merits.28 Therefore, the Court will determine whether it is in order to analyze specific facts in the corresponding sections. 25. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s assertion is not a matter for a preliminary objection, and is therefore inadmissible. B. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 22 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 153, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 23 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners, para. 154, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 17, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 145 24 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 18, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 33. See also, Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para.15. Indeed, Articles 35 and 40 of the Court’s the Rules of Procedure establish the procedural opportunity for the Commission to offer expert evidence (in the brief submitting the case) and for the representatives of the presumed victims to present their motions and arguments and to offer evidence, and to this end, they may only base themselves on the factual determinations of the Merits Report. Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, para. 145. 25 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 53. 26 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 155, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 27 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005, para. 58, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 28 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, para. 34, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 25. 11