rejected the facts submitted to the Court’s consideration. They also indicated that facts classified as supervening can also be admitted. In this regard, it was the role of the InterAmerican Court to decide, in each specific case, on the admissibility of arguments concerning the factual framework, safeguarding the procedural balance between the parties and the adversarial principle. 96. In addition, the representatives indicated that their allegation of the presumed violation of the right to the truth was based on three facts that were included in the Inter-American Commission’s Merits Report: (i) the official version of Vladimir Herzog’s suicide by hanging; (ii) the absence of official documents regarding the circumstances of his arbitrary detention, torture and murder, and (iii) the absence of an adequate investigation. G.2. Considerations of the Court 97. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are allegations of a preliminary nature intended to prevent the examination of the merits of a matter in dispute by contesting the admissibility of a case, or the Court’s competence to examine a specific case or any of its aspects, due either to the person, matter, time or place, provided that such allegations are of a preliminary nature. 41 If the allegations cannot be considered without first making a preliminary examination of the merits of the case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection. 42 Therefore, the Court does not consider that these allegations made by the State are a preliminary objection, without prejudice to examining the allegation in this section. 98. In this regard, the Court recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court consists of the facts contained in the Merits Report, with the exception of facts classified as supervening, provided that the latter relate to the facts of the proceedings. This is without prejudice to the representatives being able to introduce facts that explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in the Merits Report and have been submitted to the consideration of the Court. 43 In this case, the Court notes that the information forwarded by the representatives is related to the alleged institutional cover-up that the Commission refers to in its Merits Report. The Court also considers that, even though the Commission has not established a violation of the right to the truth, the public civil action is included in the factual framework of the Merits Report, so that the facts presented by the representatives in relation to that judicial initiative are admissible and will be considered in the chapter on the merits. V. EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 99. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the State, the representatives, and the Commission, attached to their principal briefs (supra paras. 2, 7 and 8). The Court also received the affidavits of expert witnesses John Dinges and Naomi Roht41 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, para. 34, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuardor, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2017. Series C No. 306, para. 18. 42 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, para. 39, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Merits. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 39. 43 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 30. 21