16 45. This Court has established that the factual framework for 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 allege new facts that differ from those contained in the Merits Report, although they may present those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the said report that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration (also called “supplementary facts”).24 The exception to this principle are facts that qualify as supervening facts, and they may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of judgment, provided they relate to the facts of the case. 46. In its Merits Report, the Commission established, as the factual framework for the proceedings before the Court, the procedure to which I.V. was subjected in a Bolivian public hospital on July 1, 2000, and the subsequent failure of the State to provide an effective judicial remedy. However, the Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State failed to indicate the additional facts to which it alluded; thus, the presumed new facts that the representative allegedly included in her motions and pleadings brief cannot be clearly identified from the information provided. Nevertheless, it is possible to infer from the answering brief that the facts alluded to by the State correspond to events that occurred while I.V. was living in Peru. In this regard, and if it finds it pertinent, the Court notes that it could take into account personal factors, such as the presumed victim’s situation and, in particular, the events that I.V. experienced in Peru, when examining the merits in order to evaluate the characterization of the fact that took place in Bolivia as torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, because this characterization depends on various factors, including the victim’s vulnerability and the context and specific circumstances of each case. Consequently, the Court finds that the State’s request that it not take into consideration the facts presented in the motions and pleadings brief is inadmissible. C. Other human rights violations alleged by the representative 47. The State contested the representative’s inclusion of presumed violation of rights that had not been indicated previously in the Merits Report: namely, the rights recognized in Articles 3, 5(2) and 25(2) of the Convention, and also the presumed violation of Article 5 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of this instrument with regard to N.V. and L.A. The representative asked the Court to disregard the State’s objection and stressed that, according to the Court’s case law, the presumed victims and their representatives could invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they related to the facts contained in that document. The representative indicated that the alleged violations were founded not only on the factual framework established by Commission, but also on the facts described by the petitioners throughout the proceedings under the inter-American system. The Commission made no ruling in this regard. 48. The Court recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the possibility of changing or varying the legal classification of the facts that form the grounds for the specific case is permitted during proceedings under the inter-American system. In this regard, the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided these relate to the facts contained in that document, because the presumed victims are entitled to all the rights recognized in the Convention.25 49. Consequently, the Court notes that the representative’s arguments with regard to Articles 3, Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 25, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 41. 24 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 the Triunfo de la Cruz Garifuna Community and its members v. Honduras. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No. 305, para. 204. 25