13 36. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Tribunal dismisses the second preliminary objection raised by the State. IV PRELIMINARY MATTERS 37. Next, the Court shall refer to the two issues presented by the State, being preliminary matters precedent, in relation to the representatives’ brief of the pleadings and motions. 1. Inadmissibility ratione materiae of new claims argued by the representatives a) Arguments of the Parties i) Arguments of the State 38. The State argued that the brief submitted by the representatives “seeks to introduce into this process new claims that are not included in the application filed by the Commission [and that these] new claims vary and modify the scope of the present case” and therefore should not be admitted by the Court in the present litigation. 39. The claims that the State considers as introduced by the representatives into this case refer, to the Court´s opinion, both to facts and to rights, namely: the alleged acts of torture, the alleged violation of Articles 2 of the Convention against Torture and 24 of the American Convention, and the alleged responsibility of the State for failing to adequately classify torture, all of which the State requested the Tribunal not to admit. 40. The State’s argument refers to the representatives’ assertions that, while in Panamanian’s custody, Mr. Vélez Loor suffered ill treatment, sexual abuse, and torture. In particular, the representatives sustained that Mr. Vélez Loor “was victim of multiple instances of humiliation and mistreatment, while in Panamanian custody, which must be considered as torture.” In this respect, they indicated that on June 1, 2003, after he initiated a hunger strike and stitched his mouth, Mr. Vélez was transferred to maximum security Cellblock 12 at La Joyita Prison, where “they beat him,” poured tear gas in his face and eyes, “sprayed tear gas onto his genitals,” and where “he was raped by a police guard who inserted a pen with tear gas powder into his anus.” ii) Response to the Arguments of the State 41. The representatives alleged that in their brief they elaborated on the facts, legal claims, and proposed reparations, following the factual framework established in the application of the Commission, without putting forth different facts and limiting themselves to explaining or contextualizing the alleged violations; as such, they requested that this preliminary matter be dismissed. Likewise, they indicated that “the description of the acts of torture suffered by Mr. Jesús Vélez Loor, while in Panamanian custody, does nothing more than develop the facts put forward by the Commission in the brief containing the application[, and] forms an integral part of it.” Hence, they considered that it is up to the Court, in view of the evidence provided, to assess and rule on the State's responsibility for the alleged acts of torture. Likewise, the representatives sustained that even though the Commission made no reference to "the violation of the right to humane treatment based on act of torture", "[t]he Court has expressly acknowledged that [the representatives may introduce new claims].”