8. These circumstances allow a full understanding of the sense and meaning of the conduct to be judged that, incidentally, is not exhausted with the conduct itself, since it is a matter of evolving with its past and its continuity in the present, which could well be described as Heraclitean. 2 9. In the realm of reality, interactive human behaviors are judged in their own environment and, therefore, in all cases an adequate weighting of that environment is essential for the correct understanding of the matter that is submitted to the judges for their legal assessment or dismissal. 10. In accordance with what has been stated, as is the Court’s custom, the matter to be judged must be framed in its corresponding context, which recognizes a past and which is not terminated, abruptly or without consultation, at the time the imputed act took place or was committed, since it would be quite arbitrary to omit the details that previously or subsequently may shed light on occurrences, with a natural impact on the justice of the decision taken. In any case, appealing to the well-known Augustinian aporia, it is clear that, without the past and the future, only a dividing line would remain between two voids of being. 11. It can be said that in practically all cases this Court has proceeded considering both the precedents and the subsequent events. This criterion is imposed because, without evaluation of prior events, it is often not possible to establish the intentionality of an act. Without weighing subsequent events it would never be possible to know, for example, whether or not the measures of non-repetition, frequently established in the judgments of this Court, are fair. 12. Accordingly, in the case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, the Court stated: The factual framework of the process before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted for its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts other than those contained in said report, without prejudice to exposing those that explain, clarify or reject facts that have been mentioned in it and submitted to the consideration of the Court. The exception to this principle are facts classified as supervening or when these facts are known or evidence about them is later accessed, provided that they are linked to the facts of the case. 3 It has made similar rulings in cases such as I.V. v. Bolivia 4, “Five Pensioners” v. Peru 5, Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador 6. 13. The Court’s case law on this point has been peaceable in terms of accepting the inclusion of supervening facts as long as they are related to the facts of the case. In this regard, in the Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, it stated: “This Court has the power to make its own determination of the facts of the case and to decide legal aspects not alleged by the parties based on the principle of iura novit curia. That is to say, although the action constitutes the factual framework of the 2 Cf. his fragments in Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, The Presocratic Wisdom, Madrid, 1985; Martin Heidegger – Eugen Fink, Heraclitus, Barcelona, 1986; Rodolfo Mondolfo, Ancient Thought, Buenos Aires, 1974 3 Cf. Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, par. 30. Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, par. 45. 4 Cf. Case of “Fiver pensioners” v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 154, 155. 5 6 Cf. Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, par. 41. 2