brief, with respect to the context already outlined and identified by the Commission in the Merits Report, which are outside of the factual framework of the case sub judice, and which they seek to include in order to allege supposed new autonomous violations against the alleged victims. Thus, the Mexican State argued that the alleged political context described by the representatives constitutes a new fact, which is outside of the factual framework established by the Commission. 45. For their part, the representatives stressed the importance that the Court, when analyzing the merits of the alleged violations, should take into account the general and historical context of the facts, in conjunction with the systematic conduct of the ministerial and judicial authorities of the State of Mexico in consummating and perpetuating the alleged human rights violations against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz and their respective families. The Commission did not comment on this argument. C.2. Considerations of the Court 46. With regard to this argument, it should be recalled that the Court has established that the factual framework of a case is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report, which were submitted to the consideration of the Court. Therefore, it is not admissible to allege new facts other than those set forth in said brief, without prejudice to presenting facts that may explain, clarify or dismiss those mentioned in the Merits Report, or respond to the claims of the Commission (also called “supplementary facts”). The exception to this principle are those facts characterized as supervening, which may be submitted before the Court at any procedural stage prior to the issuance of the judgment. 43 47. In the instant case, the Court notes that the factual framework of the case established by the Commission does not refer to a political context. The only contextual references made by the Commission in said report are those related to the application of arraigo and mandatory pretrial detention. Accordingly, the Court will not include new facts related to the political context presented by the representatives in the factual basis of the case. VI. EVIDENCE 48. The Court admits the documents submitted at the proper procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), whose admissibility was neither disputed nor challenged and whose authenticity was not questioned. 44 Likewise, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing 45 and by affidavit, 46 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the orders requiring them and the purpose of this case. 47 The Court also admits the documents submitted by the representatives 43 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; Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 38, 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. 40. 44 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpíle et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 31. 45 Zubieta. The Court received the statements of Daniel García Rodríguez, José Ramón Cossío Díaz and Rogelio Arturo Bárcena 46 The Court received the statements provided by affidavit of: Jorge Ulises Carmona Tinoco, José Alberto Buendía Valverde, Norma Elvira Trejos, Denisse Aribel Pérez, Guillermina Trinidad Olivarez, Laura García Rodríguez, María Magdalena Pérez, Reyes Alpízar and Víctor Rodríguez. 47 The purposes of the statements are established in the Orders of the President of the Court of July 6, 2022 and July 27, 2022 (supra para. 11). -14-