A. The inclusion of the presumed violation of the right to personal integrity 1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 16. The State indicated that the presumed victim had violated the principle of procedural good faith by not having argued the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention during the processing of the case before the Commission and by introducing the presumed violation of this right in the proceedings before the Court. The State considered that this situation represented an evident change in the original position of the representative and that this had a direct effect on the inter-American proceedings, the State’s right to defense, and legal certainty. Thus, it indicated that “the right that they are now seeking be declared was not discussed or presented by the [Commission] before the […] Court and it should be recalled that more than [five] years have passed during which the presumed victims never invoked the supposed violation of Article 5(1) before the Commission.” 17. The representative indicated that the pleadings and motions brief is an “autonomous document where the victims or the beneficiaries present, independently, their arguments related to the case and this allows the victims to present new arguments in relation to the facts described in the application.” Thus, he argued that “[a]lthough it is true [that] the Inter-American Commission omitted to analyze [Article 5 of the Convention] in light of the facts it submitted, the examination of the facts described in the application clearly reveals a failure of the Ecuadorian State to prevent the incident denounced.” 18. For its part, the Commission argued that the representative may present facts that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the Merits Report, and may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in that report, because the presumed victims are the possessors of all the rights recognized in the Convention. 2. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court has established that the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they abide by the facts contained in that document, because the presumed victims are the possessors of all the rights recognized the Convention. 10 Thus, it is not admissible to allege new facts, without prejudice to describing those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the Merits Report, or that relate to the plaintiff’s claims. 11 The application of these criteria to the instant case requires the Court to verify whether the alleged violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention relates to facts contained in the factual framework described by the Commission in the Merits Report. 12 20. The Court observes that the representative argued the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention based on the failure to control the professional activities of the doctor who performed the operation on the presumed victim, Melba Suárez Peralta, and the investigations conducted during the criminal proceedings. Thus, he explained that operations performed in the Minchala Clinic “formed part of an agreement signed with a State entity called the Guayas Traffic Commission, where the husband of the [presumed] 10 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro fertilization"), supra, para. 42. 11 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra, para. 153, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 17. 12 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 25. 8