12 thereby during their preventive detention in police facilities, the prison regime applied thereto during the first months of imprisonment and the prison conditions of the different institutions where they were held in custody. Some of those events were included by the Commission in its application. However, the alleged mistreatment inflicted to Wilson García-Asto during his detention in police facilities in 1995 is still a contested issue, as it happens with the alleged events occurred at “Miguel CastroCastro” Prison in Lima, Peru (hereinafter “Castro-Castro Prison”) between May 6 and May 9, 1992, where Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was held in custody. 65. In its closing written arguments the State alleged that [a]t the hearing […] the allegations made by the Commission on the facts of the case [were] not challenged. After the testimonies, it stated that the failure to challenge the facts extend[ed] to the events alleged by the victims. 66. Nevertheless, Peru added that “neither García-Asto nor Ramírez-Rojas ha[d] filed a complaint or report with competent State authorities on [the new] facts [alleged by the representatives], not even after November 2001, and that, therefore, Peru ha[d] had no opportunity to formally assess whether the victims we[re] entitled to claim compensation.” 67. Consequently, the State considered that “without prejudice to affirming the acknowledgment of the facts made according to the above referred statement, it still ha[d] the right to raise an objection for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies which it assert[ed] […] as the merits of the case [sic]. The foregoing shall apply, according to the Commission, only to the new facts of the instant case, on which the State had no formal opportunity to make observations.” 68. In its closing written arguments, the Commission stated that the representatives referred for the first time in the proceedings before the Court to the “bodily and psychological harassment and coercion inflicted on Wilson García-Asto while held in custody at the National Counter-Terrorism Department (Dirección Nacional Contra el Terrorismo) (hereinafter ��the DINCOTE”) in 1995.” The Commission considered that those events were new facts “with which the representative of the [alleged] victim got acquainted after his release and that, therefore, could be considered by the Court as part of the facts of the instant case based on the rationale of the objection established in [its precedents] in relation to supervening events.” 69. Moreover, the Commission noted that the facts presented by the representatives in connection with the political context prevailing between 1980 and 2001, as well as the events that took place in Castro-Castro Prison between May 6 and May 9, 1992, where Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was held in custody, had not been included in the application. With regard to the events occurred in Castro-Castro Prison in 1992, the Commission added that they “were the main facts of the application filed by the Commission against the State of Peru” before the Inter-American Court. 70. Finally, the Commission pointed out that the application facts, which were later specified, detailed or defined by the representatives, referred to the “prison regime applied to [the alleged victims] as detainees convicted of the crime of terrorism, and to the prison conditions […] of the penitentiaries where [they] were held in custody.”