10 this regard, the rights indicated in the Admissibility Report are the result of a preliminary examination of a petition that is being processed; thus, this does not preclude the possibility that, at later stages, the procedure may include other rights or articles that have presumably been violated, provided the State’s right to defend itself within the factual framework of the case analyzed is respected.16 21. In the instant case, the Court observes that the State was aware of the facts that substantiate the presumed violation of Article 16, because these were included in the initial petition lodged before the Inter-American Commission on October 13, 1993.17 In that communication, Mr. Lagos del Campo indicated that the reason for his dismissal related to his position as a labor leader, which is the factual framework used by the Commission to allege the violation of Article 16 of the Convention.18 In particular, in that petition, Mr. Lagos del Campo stated that he was dismissed when he was president of the Electoral Committee of the Industrial Community of the Ceper-Pirelli company, “merely because I was a [labor leader] who was defending the sacred rights and benefits of workers in my country and, especially, of those who work for Conductores Eléctricos Peruanos S.A. (CEPER PIRELLI).”19 22. The Court also considers that there are elements that allow it to infer that, in his initial briefs, Mr. Lagos del Campo argued that, owing to his dismissal, the rights of other workers had been affected. In fact, the presumed victim indicated in the complaint he filed before the labor judge that “it is evident that the sanction applied against me, in addition to being unjustified and unfair, constitutes an act of interference in the internal matters of the Industrial Community.”20 In the Court’s opinion, this and other references related to the connection between the presumed victim’s dismissal and the impact on the Industrial Community and its members, allow it to be concluded that the State had the opportunity to rule on facts related to the possible violation of the freedom of association of Mr. Lagos del Campo and other workers. 23. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State had been aware of the facts that substantiate the presumed violation of Article 16 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lagos del Campo since the Commission began to process this matter; therefore, it could have stated its position if it had deemed this pertinent. For the same reason, in its Merits Report, the Commission was able to classify the facts in a different way from in the Admissibility Report, without this involving a violation of the State’s right to defend itself. Consequently, the Court concludes that, in this regard, there was no violation of the right of defense during the procedure before the Inter-American Commission in the terms indicated by the State. 2. Temporal delimitation of the analysis of judicial actions 24. The Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in the Merits Report, without prejudice to submitting those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the said report that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration (also known as “supplementary facts”).21 The exception to this principle are facts that are 16 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 52. 17 Cf. Brief of October 13, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, f. 588). Cf. Observations of the IACHR on the preliminary objections filed by the State (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report f. 361, para. 33) 18 19 Cf. Brief of October 13, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, f. 588). 20 Cf. Complaint of July 26, 1989 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, ff. 231 and 232). Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 25, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 45. 21