64. Therefore, the Court will exclude the facts and arguments related to the creation of the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park from the analysis of the instant case. B.2 Request to incorporate facts related to the “Los Chorros” Hydroelectric Project; mining exploration and exploitation activities and the Fisheries Act 65. In their pleadings and motions brief filed before the Court on January 3, 2014, the representatives provided information on presumed facts that were not included within the factual framework of the Merits Report submitted by the Commission, namely: (1) the presumed construction of the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric dam on the Sico River; (2) the commencement of mining exploration and exploitation activities by the “BG Group” oil company in the continental shelf in front of La Mosquitia, and (3) the approval of a draft Fisheries Law by the Opinions Committee of the Honduran Congress. Subsequently, during the public hearing of the case on September 2, 2014, the representatives reported that: (1) the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric dam project had been announced in February 2011 and would presumably flood the southern margin of the ancestral territory of the Punta Piedra community; (2) in July 2014, the commencement of exploration activities by the “BG Group” oil company was announced, and (3) on August 20, 2014, the Fisheries Law was enacted presumably allowing industrial fishing within three miles of the coast. Lastly, with their final written arguments presented to the Court on October 2, 2014, the representatives provided three newspaper articles as evidence. 33 66. Neither the State nor the Commission presented observations in this regard. 67. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to submit new facts that differ from those contained in this report, without prejudice to contributing new facts that explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court’s consideration. The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, or when the parties later become aware of facts or obtain access to evidence on them, provided these are related to the facts in these proceedings. 34 68. Regarding the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric dam; first, the Court considers that the presentation of these facts is not intended to explain or clarify the central issue of the case, namely, the failure to free the territory titled to the Punta Piedra community of encumbrances. Second, although the facts occurred in February 2011 according to the representatives, the Court has verified that the first reference in this regard was made in a brief of June 5, 2013, that the representatives submitted to the InterAmerican Commission in response to the Merits Report issued on March 21, 2013. Consequently, the Court considers that the presumed facts related to the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric dam were not supervening to the issue of the Merits Report, and are 33 Regarding the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric project, see newspaper article, available at http://www.newsinamerica.com/pgint.php?id=10908. Regarding oil exploration activities, see press release available at http://www.elheraldo.hn/inicio/443116-331/bg-group-iniciara-exploracion-petrolera-en-lamosquitia-de-honduras. Regarding the enactment of the Fisheries Law, see newspaper article available at http://www.latribuna.hn/2014/08/20/sustituyen-nueva-ley-de-pesca/. 34 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 Rodriguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice), supra, para. 47. 19