158. The Commission indicated that it could not find any violation of the State’s right of defense in relation to the alleged new facts concerning Damas Vega and Jorge Martínez, since Costa Rica did not indicate to which alleged new facts it was referring. B.2. Considerations of the Court 159. First, the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the alleged violations derived from the prison conditions in the CAI La Reforma to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Damas Vega Atencio was previously accepted; therefore, the facts presented by the SIPDH in relation to the complaints about the prison food at CAI La Reforma will not be examined within the factual framework of this case. For the same reason, the facts related to the incidental plea of illness filed on November 13, 2006 by Damas Vega Atencio will not be examined either. 160. Secondly, regarding the allegations of Factum Consorcio about what happened to Jorge Martínez Meléndez at the CAI San José, as well as the allegations of the Public Defenders regarding the alleged “structural violations in the Costa Rican prison system,” the Court notes that the Merits Report of the Commission refers only to the situation of the CAI La Reforma, 193 without any considerations about the CAI San José or about the Costa Rican prison system as a whole. 194 Consequently, the Court considers that these facts do not fall within the factual framework of the case and therefore will not rule on the matter. 161. Third, the Court notes that in the Merits Report, the Commission held that the State failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the minimum conditions of detention compatible with human dignity, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of all the victims in the instant case who served their sentences in the CAI La Reforma. However, it did not specify the time, manner and place of the facts that gave rise to the alleged violations of the personal integrity of each of the alleged victims who served their sentences in the CAI La Reforma, beyond those denounced by Rafael Rojas and Damas Vega. 162. This Court has established that, based on the adversarial principle, the discussion of factual issues must be reflected in the Merits Report. 195 Thus, it is for the Court to decide in each case on the admissibility of the arguments relating to the factual framework, in order to safeguard the procedural balance between the parties. 196 In this case, the Court considers that, since the facts that led to the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of each of the victims - with the exception of Rojas Madrigal and Vega Atencio- were not specified in the Merits Report or in the pleadings and motions brief, the State found itself, in the proceedings before this Court, in a situation of procedural imbalance and therefore, these alleged violations do not form part of the factual framework of the case. 193 Cf. Merits Report No. 33/14 of April 4, 2014, paras. 94 to 155, 177 to 183 and 255 to 268 (merits file, folios 28 to 35, 51, 52 and 68 to 71). 194 In relation to the situation at CAI La Reforma, the Commission mentioned in the Merits Report that “the State recognized that there has been an increase in the number of persons deprived of liberty at prison facilities and noted that more resources have been allocated in the 2013 draft budget for the construction of prison infrastructure.” However, it did not provide details of time, mode or place that would enable the Court to determine which establishments it was referring to, since the Commission’s analysis always focused on the situation in the CAI La Reforma. Cf. Merits Report No. 33/14 of April 4, 2014 (merits file, folio 68). 195 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 31, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, Para. 28. 196 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán v Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 58, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 28. 54