V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 24. The State argued that “[t]he facts examined by the Commission, based on which it determined the presumed responsibility of the State of El Salvador, are circumscribed to the criminal proceedings against Manuela and her conviction for the offense of aggravated homicide, to her health care, and to her subsequent decease while in the custody of the State.” It stressed that the Commission had considered that it would not examine the context of the criminalization of abortion because Manuela was convicted of aggravated homicide. It argued that, despite this, the representatives had included within the context facts relating to the “criminalization of obstetric emergencies in El Salvador.” The State argued that those facts did not form part of the factual framework of the case.74 25. The representatives argued that the contextual information that the State sought to exclude from the factual framework corresponded to facts that explained and clarified the facts mentioned in the submission of the case and the Merits Report presented by the Commission. They emphasized that “the Commission itself, in the letter submitting the case, indicated that the instant case should be analyzed ‘within the framework of the known context in El Salvador of the criminalization of abortion.’” They also argued that, in the Merits Report, the Commission had: (1) “underlined that the severity of El Salvador’s criminal laws meant that ‘women are prosecuted for the offense of abortion or for the offense of homicide in proceedings in which different guarantees of due process are violated and pretrial detention is used abusively,’” and (2) “referred to a series of rulings on the way in which the rights of women are not ensured when they seek medical attention.” Therefore, they considered that “all the facts recounted in the pleadings and motions brief fall within the factual framework that the Commission submitted to the Court and should be taken into account by the Court when analyzing the case.” 26. The Commission argued that the said information “is related to the section on context in the Merits Report, as well as to the facts of the said decision, and contributes to clarifying or explaining those facts. Furthermore, the Commission considers that […] the said contextual information may be useful to enable the Court: (1) to adequately characterize the facts and assess the international responsibility of the State; (2) understand and assess the evidence, and (3) determine the measures of reparation.” B. Considerations of the Court 27. This Court has established that the factual framework for the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration; therefore, it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those described in the said report, without prejudice to presenting facts that explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in the report, or that relate to the claims of the petitioner (also called “complementary facts”). The exception to this principle are facts referred to as supervening facts, and these may be forwarded to the court at any stage of the proceedings before judgment has been delivered.75 Ultimately, it corresponds to the Court to decide, in each The Court notes that in its final written arguments, the State requested the exclusion of other facts. However, this request was time-barred. 74 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 39. 75 14