punish him, considering him a public official - even though he was not appointed as such - and applying to him the criminal offense of communicability of circumstances. d) regarding the alleged refusal to admit and provide access to evidence for the defense, there is no attempt to recreate the oral trial, since the evidence that the State did not allow at trial is not offered, but it is stated “that the processing of these proceedings was done in violation of the victim’s rights under the Convention, and that the infringement of the right to liberty was an arbitrary and illegal act.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 152. First, regarding the inclusion of a second criminal case (file 05-007495-0647-TP), in Factum Consorcio's pleadings and motions brief, in which Mr. Martínez Meléndez was sentenced to 6 years in prison for the crimes of libelous complaint (querella calumniosa) and actual libel (calumnia real), the Court notes that this information does not appear in the Commission's Merits Report. Nor do these facts explain, clarify or dismiss those contained in the Merits Report, nor are they supervening facts that occurred after its issuance. On this point, the Court notes that the representatives informed the Commission of said criminal case on March 26, 2011, 189 even prior to the issuance of Admissibility Report No. 105/11, 190 which does not mention it either. Thus, the Court considers that the factual arguments of the representatives related to the aforementioned criminal case introduce new aspects that are not part of the factual framework, and will therefore not take them into consideration. 153. Second, regarding the substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia in the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José during the substantiation of case No. 03-82-016TP and the alleged refusal to admit and provide access to evidence for the defense, the Court finds that although these facts are not expressly mentioned in the Merits Report, they are part of the alleged grievances raised in the appeal in cassation against judgment No. 680-2007, decided on March 11, 2008, by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court 191 which is contained in the Merits Report. Therefore, this Court considers that these facts clarify aspects of the criminal proceedings referred to in the Merits Report, and which thus form part of the factual framework of the case. Finally, with respect to the alleged extensive application and interpretation of the criminal offense of embezzlement, the preliminary objection presented by the State was previously declared admissible (supra para. 88). B. Regarding the prison conditions of the alleged victims B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 154. The State alleged that the following facts argued by the representatives are outside the factual framework of the instant case: a) The SIPDH representatives alleged that Damas Vega filed a series of complaints before different authorities that do not appear in the Merits Report. Cf. Brief submitted by the representatives of Adrián Martínez Blanco on March 7, 2017, in response to official communication DJO-075-17 presented by the State of Costa Rica, (merits file, folio 2647). 190 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 105/11 Petitions 663/06 and others, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, July 22, 2011, paras. 39-42 (evidence file, folios 18255 and 18256). 191 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, annex 109, folio 19004). 189 52