139. In the first place, it must be noted that part of the allegations of the representatives is based on their claims regarding the general conditions in the National Penitentiary where the alleged victims were being held. Those aspects will not be considered because they are not included in the factual framework contained in the Commission’s Merits Report.143 140. In the second place, it must be noted that a violation of the Inter-American Torture Convention has been claimed by the representatives and not by the Commission. The Court has held that the representatives of the alleged victims “may assert the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they are within the factual framework defined by the Commission.”144 141. In view of the above, the Court will examine the allegations of the Commission and of the parties. In order to do so: a) it will give a general guideline on the right to personal integrity, the separation of persons being prosecuted and those convicted and the prohibition of torture and other cruel treatment; b) it will analyze the facts of the case that are related to the placing of the presumed victims with convicted prisoners, the conduct of the State with respect to the threats received by the alleged victims and the placing of María Angélica González and Belkis González in solitary confinement, and c) finally, it will give its conclusion. B.1 General guidelines on the right to personal integrity, the separation of persons being prosecuted from those already convicted and the prohibition of torture and other cruel treatment 142. The Court recalls that “detainees have the right to live in conditions of detention that are compatible with their personal dignity” and the State must guarantee this right, which is established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention.145 143. One of the safeguards to that effect is provided by Article 5(4) of the Convention that “imposes on the States the obligation to establish a system for classifying prison inmates, in order to ensure that those who are being prosecuted are separated from those who have been convicted, and that the former are treated in a way that is appropriate to their status as persons who have not been convicted.”146 It also The Court reminds that the factual framework is composed of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Therefore, allegations of facts distinct from those presented in the Report are not admissible, except for those that might be considered complementary, that is, that explain, clarify or reject those that are mentioned in Report or, if applicable, respond to claims made by the parties or the Commission. (Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para 16). The facts mentioned by the representatives cannot be considered complementary. Since those facts will not be considered, the arguments in support of them will not be taken into account. 143 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 22. 144 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paras. 126 and 138 and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 88. 145 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, para. 158 and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 380. See also, Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 96. 146 37