criminal action. 23. The Court recalls that one of the disputes in this case consists of the alleged international responsibility of the State for the violation of the guarantee of a reasonable timeframe due to the duration of the criminal process for the alleged sexual violence suffered by Brisa, as well as by virtue of the alleged lack of necessary safeguards to prevent the suspect from fleeing. In this regard, the Court considers that determining whether the time elapsed between the beginning of the criminal process and the Admissibility Report constituted an unjustified delay, in terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, is a debate that is directly related to the substantive dispute relating to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, since there is an intimate relationship between the State's preliminary objection and the substantive analysis of the dispute, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. B. Alleged incompetence ratione materiae B.1 Arguments of the Parties and the Commission 24. The State argued that the Court does not have the power to rule on Articles 6 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, with the understanding that it is limited only to facts related to Article 7 of the same instrument, by virtue of the restriction contained in Article 12 of said Convention. The Commission noted that, in paragraphs 42 and 43 of its Merits Report, it declared a violation of the obligations established in Articles 7(b) and (f) of the Belém do Pará Convention. The representatives accepted the preliminary objection filed by the State and withdrew the “formal claims for reparation” raised under Articles 6 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Additionally, they clarified that the aforementioned articles have “a useful persuasive authority to guide the interpretation of Articles 8, 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention.” B.2 Considerations of the Court 25. The Court recalls that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they remain within the factual framework defined by the Commission, since the alleged victims are the holders of all the rights enshrined in the American Convention.28 In these cases, it is up to the Court to decide on the admissibility of allegations relating to the factual framework, safeguarding the procedural balance of the parties. 26. Although the representatives abandoned their claim for the Court to rule directly on Articles 6 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Court recalls that it may take said articles into account on interpreting the content of Article 7 of the aforementioned international instrument and the provisions of the American Convention. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Bolivia became devoid of purpose. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 27. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, which, as in other cases, are admitted on the understanding that they were presented at the due procedural opportunity (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).29 28 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 22. 29 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, 10