- 19 - 46. In this regard, the Court notes that, in general, the facts described by the representatives as part of the context refer to: (i) the repression of social protest in Mexico, and (ii) the generalized use of torture and sexual violence against women, and this includes references to: (a) the generalized use of torture in Mexico and the absence of documentation on its aftereffects; (b) sexual violence, discrimination and lack of access to justice for women in Mexico, and (c) sexual torture against women in Mexico. Thus, they go far beyond the factual framework included by the Commission in the Merits Report and, therefore, there purpose is not to explain or clarify the facts included therein, but to present a different context. Consequently, the Court will not incorporate them into the analysis of the context of this case. B. The presumed victims in this case 47. In their motions and pleadings brief, the representatives added Bertha Rosales Gutiérrez, the sister of Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, as a presumed victim.46 According to the representatives, owing to a “transcription error in the annex to the Merits Report [her name] was omitted,” but she had been included in the brief on merits submitted to the Commission in which the next of kin of the eleven women presumed victims in this case were identified. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this factor. 48. Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the Merits Report must identify the presumed victims, with the exception of the cases established in Article 35(2) of this instrument. In this case, this Court notes that the representatives informed the Commission of the identity of all the presumed victims, including Bertha Rosales Gutiérrez at the proper opportunity during the procedure before that organ, prior to the issue of the said Merits Report.47 Accordingly, the Court notes that the failure to include her in the Merits Report, without the Commission justifying the reasons for her exclusions, would appear to be a clerical error that should not prevent the Court from considering her a presumed victim. Therefore, as it has proceeded in another recent case, 48 the Court will include her as a presumed victim in this case. VII EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 49. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented at the proper time by the parties and the Commission or requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence, the admissibility of which has not been contested or challenged (supra paras. 1, 6, 7 and 12). 50. Both the State and the representatives presented certain documents with their final written arguments. In this regard, the representatives asked the Court not to admit three of the annexes presented by the State.49 The representatives argued that the State had not presented this 46 Cf. Birth certificate of Bertha Rosales Gutiérrez Cf. The representatives’ brief with observations on the merits in the procedure before the Commission of March 6, 2013 (evidence file, folio 14264). 47 Cf. Case of the Dismissed PetroPeru Workers et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, paras. 53 and 55. 48 Specifically, the representatives asked that the following annexes to the State’s final written arguments be excluded: Annex 1 (videos of the events that occurred on May 3 and 4, 2006, in San Salvador Atenco), Annex 2 (copy of criminal 49