11 implications for the proceedings before the Court and it cannot be considered that their effects are reserved to the internal or administrative sphere. 23. The statements made by the State before the Commission (supra paras. 17, 18 and 19) reveal that it did not relate its “responsibility” to the violation of specific norms; nevertheless, it is clear that it has accepted the following as factual elements: (a) “in 2001, […] there were no guidelines for investigating and prosecuting crimes”; (b) in that year, a structural situation of impunity existed and fear among the population of Guatemala”; (c) in the same year there was an “increase in […] violent deaths”; (d) during the investigation into what happened to María Isabel Veliz Franco “[certain tests] and the autopsy were not performed, or not performed correctly in keeping with international standards,” and (f) there was a “lack of due diligence in the investigation procedure […] owing to[: (i)] the failure to perform some forensic tests on the corpse[; (ii)] the delay resulting from the dispute on territorial jurisdiction, and [(iii)] because an effective precautionary measure was not ordered to ensure the presence of [a person identified as] suspected of committing the murder.” 24. Consequently, the Court will take into account the pertinent facts accepted by the State when analyzing the preliminary objections filed, and also, as appropriate the substantive elements or those relating to the merits of the alleged human rights violations. B. The factual framework 25. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege facts that differ from those contained in the said report, even though they may indicate elements that explain, clarify or reject the facts that are mentioned in this report and have been submitted to the Court’s consideration (also called “complementary facts”).13 26. Some of the representative’s arguments relating to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention refer to the fact that, in her efforts to obtain justice for her daughter, Rosa Elvira Franco “has been exposed to numerous threats and harassment that have caused anguish and distress, not only to her, but also to María Isabel’s brothers and grandparents, owing to the possibility that their personal integrity or even their life could be jeopardized […].” During the proceedings before the Court, the representative indicated that, following María Isabel’s murder, Mrs. Franco Sandoval and the members of her family, have been subjected to continuing acts of intimidation and harassment. 14 27. The Court has verified that the Commission, in its Merits Report, indicated that, on June 27, 2005, Rosa Elvira Franco asked the Commission to grant precautionary measures, 13 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 J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 27. 14 In the section on facts of the motions and arguments brief, the representative specifically mentioned acts of intimidation and harassment that Mrs. Franco Sandoval had suffered; namely that, in February 2002, Mrs. Franco Sandoval reported that she had frequently observed suspicious individuals around her home or on her son’s path to school; in August 2002, Mrs. Franco Sandoval reported that she was receiving telephone calls in which unknown persons told her that her whole family would die; in September 2004, agents of the Guatemala City Public Prosecution Service verified the presence of armed individuals around Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s home, as well as vehicles with polarized windows and without license plates; in April 2006, an individual who had previously been prowling around the house was following Mrs. Franco Sandoval in the street and intimidating her; in August 2007, one of the agents responsible for Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s safety was shot while he returned from having lunch near Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s workplace; in December 2011, Mrs. Franco Sandoval again observed the man who had followed her in April 2006 accompanied by another unknown person, the two men remained in a car parked almost in front of Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s home for some time talking on the telephone and observing the house. Lastly, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, María Isabel’s brother, stated that, on several occasions, he had been followed by cars and that he “continually s[aw] strange cars in front of [his] house.” Cf. Affidavit prepared by Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco on April 26, 2013 (file of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, fs. 816 to 822).