9 factual framework of the process17 and that in their allegations they are “clarifying and explaining these facts” already raised in the petition and “pointing out the direct and continued consequences” of the forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech and the forced displacements of his nuclear next of kin. 25. The Inter-American Commission indicated that the “violations alleged by the representatives [in relation with Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention] were not considered in [its] report on the merits nor in the petition”, which is why it did not have observations to formulate in this regard. In the final arguments, in consideration of the request of the Tribunal in the public hearing, the Commission provided that “in the various briefs presented by the petitioners during the processing before the Court, they did not claimed the loss of lands that would have belonged to Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech, nor the impossibility of his next of kin to recoup the lands. […] [N]either did they make reference to a possible violation of Article 21 of the Convention with a basis in those hypothesis. For this reason, this was not considered by the Commission within the Reports on Admissibility and Merits. The Commission also observed that in the processing before it, evidentiary elements were not alleged in this regard”. 26. In consideration of those arguments, this Tribunal will examine if the facts provided in the petition, which constitute the factual framework of this case, serve as grounds for the allegation of Article 21 of the Convention. 27. In the present case, the facts raised in the petition make reference, on the one hand, to the fact that Florencio Chitay cultivated certain lands that he had inherited, and on the other hand, to the fact that he was the object of various threats and harassments, and that his home was attacked three times, to which he and his next of kin escaped to Guatemala City. Nevertheless, the representatives in order to establish said violation made reference to the loss of the lands that had belonged to Mr. Chitay Nech and the impossibility that his next of kin could recover the lands. 28. In this regard, the Court observes that the Commission was emphatic in pointing out that the representatives in various briefs presented before the Court did not claim the loss of lands that had belonged to Mr. Chitay Nech, nor the impossibility that his next of kin could recover the lands and neither did they make reference to a possible violation of Article 21, the reason for which it was not considered in the Reports on Admissibility and Merits. The Court affirms that the Commission did not consider the referenced facts, therefore the argument of the representatives regarding whether the principle of procedural preclusion must be applied to the facts at hand is inadmissible. 29. Of that shown, this Court considers that the facts alleged in the petition do not make reference to or establish that Mr. Chitay was ever deprived of his property, but rather: 1) that he cultivated land; b) that he was the object of threats and harassments; c) that his home was attacked, and d) that he fled to the city of Guatemala. The facts argued by the representatives consist of new facts, because they are not found within the factual framework of the petition. Consequently, given that no foundation exists in the petition to claim the alleged violation of Article 21, it is not necessary to analyze the material aspects of the objection, namely, if domestic remedies had been offered and exhausted, and if the 17 The representatives argued that the “annexes of the petition were elements of the same” and that “in the present Case, […] in [a]nnex 1 of the [petiton] the testimony of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez was introduced [where] reference was made to the land lost by the families,” to which it should be determined that the “forced abandoment and loss of lands […] forms part of the factual framework of the proceeding.”