been mentioned in the application, or respond to the claims made by the State,31 based on their arguments and the evidence they provide, without jeopardizing the procedural balance or the adversarial principle, because the State has procedural opportunities to respond to these allegations at every stage of the proceedings. Moreover, supervening facts may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the judgment is delivered,32 provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings.33 In each case, the Court must determine the need to establish the facts, as they were presented by the parties or taking into account other elements of the body of evidence,34 provided that the right of defense of the parties and the purpose of the litis are respected. 43. The Court observes that during the public hearing, the alleged victim referred to the fact alleged by the representatives regarding the possible relationship between her removal and the decision adopted in order to comply with the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission.35 In addition, the Court underscores that a judicial remedy filed by the alleged victim it was indicated that “without doubt” her appointment was annulled following that judicial procedure to “ensure compliance with the [said] precautionary measures.”36 44. Despite the foregoing, the Court has verified that, in its Report on Merits, the Commission did not refer to the fact that might have been the reason for the annulment of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment. Subsequently, in its application, which established the case’s factual framework, the Commission made no mention of that reason in either the body of the document or the footnotes, or of the alleged specific cases of the removal of judges for political motives. In addition, the said judicial remedy filed by the alleged victim (supra para. 43) was not forwarded as an attachment to the application in this case, but was presented by the representatives as part of their final written arguments. Lastly, although the Commission does refer to a “reasonable doubt” about the real reason behind the decision that annulled Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment, this assertion is not related to a specific fact in the application. 31 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 153; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 30, para. 49, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 237. 32 Similarly, Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 154; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 30, para. 49, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 31, para. 224. 33 Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, para. 155; supra note 28, para. 155; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 17, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 30, para. 49. 34 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 34, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 28, para. 47. 35 During the public hearing, the alleged victim emphasized that she learned that her appointment had been annulled “after having conducted […] a judicial procedure under which the court was requested to visit General Carlos Alfonso Martínez and notify him of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission.” In addition, regarding the reasons for her removal, Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón indicated that “officially, [she] did not know what they were […], but [it happened] just after conducting a judicial procedure with General Carlos Alfonso Martínez.” Testimony of Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón during the public hearing in this case. 36 Cf. appeal for annulment based on unconstitutionality and illegality and preventive amparo filed by Mercedes Chocrón on May 5, 2003, against Official letter No TPE-03-0152 of February 3, 2003 (merits file, volume II, folio 879). 14