2. Considerations of the Court 27. It is the jurisprudence of the Court that the alleged victims, their family members, or representatives in the contentious proceedings before this Court, may invoke the violation of rights different from those included in the Commission’s application,19 so long as they refer to facts already included in the application, which constitutes the factual framework of the proceeding.20 In turn, given that a contentious case is substantially litigation between a State and a petitioner or alleged victim, the alleged victims21 or their representatives may refer to facts that explain, contextualize, clarify, or reject those mentioned in the application or even respond to the claims of the State, 22 depending on their arguments and the evidence they provide, without this invalidating the procedural balance or adversarial principle, since the State has the procedural opportunities to respond to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives during each stage of the process. Furthermore, at any stage of the proceedings before the judgment is rendered, the Court may be presented with supervening facts, 23 provided they are tied to the facts of the case. 24 The Court must determine in each case the need to establish the facts as presented by the parties, taking into account other elements of the body of evidence,25 while respecting the right of defense of the parties and the subject of the litis. 28. In the present case, the Court finds that notwithstanding the report presented by the Inter-American Commission in 2009, cited by the representatives (supra para. 25), said body did not include in its application any specific reference to other disqualified persons - apart from Mr. López Mendoza – and his situation. The Commission also did not include facts related to a context or pattern of alleged political persecution that frames the context of the administrative proceeding held against the alleged victim nor did it specifically mention facts regarding the alleged context of “restrictions on the ability to rise to power of government dissident, opposition candidates.” 29. In this regard, even though in prior occasions the Court has ruled on, in the merits of a case, whether to assess the background or context of a case, to carry out a specific 19 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas, and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 228, and Case of Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 20 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre” V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 59; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 19, para. 134, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 21 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 49; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 56, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 22 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 153; Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 237, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 23 In a similar sense, Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 154; Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra note 22, para. 224, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 24 Cf. “Five Pensioners” V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 155; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 21, para. 49, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Fields”) V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 17, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia, para. 49. 25 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 19, para. 47, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 42. 14