43. The State asked the Court to declare inadmissible the facts and claims included in the pleadings and motions brief “that are unrelated or outside the factual framework established by the Commission in the presentation of the case.” Colombia indicated in detail which of the alleged facts it considers outside the factual framework and pointed out that some are included in the section of the pleadings and arguments brief on the factual framework,30 while others were “added by the representative outside the chapter on facts” of the said brief.31 44. Furthermore, in its final oral and written arguments, the State added that “it has not denied [the] responsibility it bears for the excessive use of force in the case of Mr. Vélez, but [it] does not accept that, around this fact, a series of events are constructed, tied in and added, in order to convert an isolated incident of excessive use of force, into a systematic State practice, pattern, or policy.” 45. The representative observed that “the clarification of the context and other essential details in the instant case do not constitute an allegation of new facts that differ from those described in more general terms by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report.” According to the representative, these are “complementary elements” that seek to “better characterize the violations and harm suffered by the victims.” He affirmed that by calling the “factual information” presented in the pleadings and arguments brief “new facts,” the State was disregarding explicit references made by the Commission in its report “to contextual or complementary information that [was] essential to substantiate some of the material facts proved.” For instance, the representative pointed out the need to provide information on the harm to the lives of the Vélez Román family as a result of the threats and harassment so as to be able to “understand [… and] evaluate […] properly” this fact established by the Commission. In addition, the representative mentioned that, in its Merits Report, the Commission “referred to facts relating to the general situation in Colombia of repression exercised by the armed forces against those who denounced them during the years in which the Vélez Román family was threatened and harassed by State agents,” which is why, in his pleadings and arguments brief, he had “present[ed] the contextual information on the impunity that reigned in Colombia and the persecution of journalists and other individuals who combatted this.” 46. The Commission did not forward observations in this regard. Considerations of the Court 47. In order to resolve this aspect, the Court will refer to its consistent case law. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is 30 Colombia indicated that it considers as new facts those described in paragraphs 16 to 43 of the pleadings and motions brief, with the exception of the fact described in paragraph 28, which states that the perpetrators of the attack against Mr. Vélez in El Caquetá were members of the Army. The State also asserted that the facts and assertions included in paragraphs 16 to 22 constitute “general affirmations” that “do not describe facts that are directly or indirectly related to the case,” and that the affirmations on the alleged systematic practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, and torture, by State agents are based on “an assessment regarding which there is no certainty.” In addition, Colombia referred to the lack or insufficiency of evidence to support the alleged facts included in paragraphs 23 to 34 of the pleadings and motions brief. Regarding the facts included in paragraphs 37 to 43 of the pleadings and motions brief, the State also argued that, as defined by the InterAmerican Commission in its Merits Report, “the incident that occurred of October 6, 1997, consisted in an alleged attempted kidnapping; therefore, it is not admissible to examine the argument of the representatives insisting on defining this incident as an attempted forced disappearance.” 31 The facts described in the pleadings and motions brief outside the chapter “Factual analysis […],” which Colombia considers to be new, are those included in paragraphs 58, 59, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84 and 94 to 145. 17