“inadmissibility ratione materiae.” 72 The respective arguments, grouped by “family” for greater clarity, are indicated below. 98. Regarding the Medina family, the State alleged that the following circumstances exceed the factual framework: (a) the “new” expulsion of Willian Medina Ferreras: the Commission had indicated a single expulsion of the members of the family in November 1999 or January 2000; however, the representatives alleged two expulsions, one of Mr. Medina alone, in November 1999, and the other, on January 6, 2000, of all the members of his family; (b) that, on January 6, 2000, an immigration agent took Mrs. Jean Pierre by the arm and shouted “walk” and that the Director of Immigration told her “go back to your country, blackie”; (c) that the members of the Medina Jean family were transported from the place in which they were apprehended in a military truck with 20 other individuals, in the custody of armed guards; (d) the alleged emotional harm caused by the death of the minor Carolina Isabel Medina; (e) that Mr. Medina Ferreras was an agricultural worker, and (f) that the value of the belongings that Willian Medina Ferreras allegedly lost was RD$50,000.00 (fifty thousand pesos). 99. With regard to the Fils-Aimé family, the State understood that the reference to the following facts exceeded the factual framework: (a) that, when Jeanty Fils-Aimé was deported on November 3, 1999, he was taken to the Pedernales Army Garrison; the Merits report indicated that he was taken to the Pedernales public prison; (b) that Jeanty FilsAimé had heard the words “get out, scum!” when he alighted from the bus that took him to the border; (c) that the bus that supposedly transported Janise Midi and her children to the border carried another 100 persons, and (d) that “[t]he supposed lot cultivated by the members of the Fils-Aimé Midi family represented fifty thousand pesos (RD$50,000).” 100. As regards the Gelin family, it argued that the following circumstances did not form part of the factual framework: (a) the alleged actions of 10 to 20 soldiers led by General Pedro de Jesús Candelier in the supposed deportation of Mr. Gelin on December 5, 1999, and (b) that the said soldiers did not verify Mr. Gelin’s identity documents and did not allow him to advise his family. 101. In relation to the Sensión Family, the State questioned the presumed inclusion in the case of the following facts: (a) Ana Lidia Sensión’s assertion that she had been taken to the border in 1994, in “a long truck with bars that was full of people, even women with babies”; (b) the valuation at RD$35,000 (thirty-five thousand pesos) of the household goods supposedly lost owing to Antonio Sensión’s visits to Haiti, and (c) the details given by the representatives about the supposed actual situation of Mr. Sensión. 102. Lastly, the State included similar considerations on certain facts relating to the Jean family: (a) the expulsion of Victor Jean and Marlene Mesidor in 1991: the Commission had only referred to two expulsions, in 1998 and in 2000, and the representatives added one in 1991, and (b) the details provided by the representatives concerning the situation of the Jean Mesidor family following the expulsion to Haiti in 2000, as well as those relating to their actual situation. 103. The representatives indicated that “each of [the facts that were supposedly inadmissible, according to the State] result from facts included in the Merits report and merely explain or clarify them.” 72 The State cited, as grounds for its position, the Court’s decision on merits in the case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. 32