19 B.2. Considerations of the Court 61. This Court recalls that according to its established case law, the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court consists of the facts contained in the Merits Report, with the exception of the facts that are classified as supervening, provided that they are linked to the facts of the proceedings. This is without prejudice to the fact that the representatives may state the facts that make it possible to explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in the Merits Report and have been submitted to the consideration of the Court.28 62. In this case, the Court notes that the facts questioned by the State are linked to the determinations of the factual framework made by the Commission in its Report, in the sections entitled “1. On the phenomenon of paramilitarism in Colombia” and “2. The situation in the Municipality of Aguachica; the actions of illegal armed groups and the link between some of these groups and State agents.” Therefore, this Court considers that these facts, as they are referred to in the Merits Report, form a relevant part of the factual framework as background and contextual elements to the attack on Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, are admissible and will be considered in relevant section of the merits. 63. However, it has already been determined that José Erminso Sepúlveda and his next of kin are not presumed victims in this case (supra para. 56). Therefore, it is relevant to clarify that the situation related to the attack on Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia will be considered whenever it refers to the background and the context in which the attack against Mr. Omeara Carrascal took place. The Court will not carry out analyzes or legal determinations regarding persons who are not considered alleged victims. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 64. In this case, as in others, the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented at the due procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission, as well as the information presented by the State and the representatives at the request of the Court, as evidence to facilitate adjudication, in accordance with Article 58(b), which were not disputed or objected, and whose authenticity was not questioned.29 Notwithstanding, some pertinent considerations are made. 65. Regarding the documents related to costs and expenses, the Court will only consider those receipts that refer to the new costs and expenses that have been incurred during the proceedings before this Court, that is, those made after the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief and will take into account the observations of the State in this regard. Therefore, they are admissible under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 66. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements and opinions given at a public hearing and through statements before notary public, insofar as they meet the purpose defined by the President in the order requesting their receipt (supra para. 10) and the purpose Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 92. 29 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 137. 28