the framework for the legal claims and reparations.202 Evidently, this does not exclude the possibility for the parties to present the facts that explain or clarify that factual framework, or the facts that allow the State concerned to deny those that have been considered in the Merits Report.203 Nor is the possibility excluded of the parties presenting supervening facts that may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the delivery of the judgment.204 Nevertheless, all things considered, when deciding in each case on the admissibility of arguments of this nature, the Court must protect the procedural balance between the parties,205 because it cannot consider facts alleged by the parties that are not in keeping with the factual framework, or refer to legal arguments regarding facts that exceed this.206 146. Based on the foregoing, and since it is the State that has access to the probative elements, if, in the answering brief it submits to the Court, it presents a position that is contradictory with regard to the one maintained before the Commission, and which involves a substantial modification of the factual framework of the case, it could impair the functioning of the inter-American system and the principle of equality of arms in the proceedings before the Court, because the opposing party and the Commission cannot change their positions or their offer of evidence. 147. Thus, as can be seen from the communications presented by the State during the processing of the case before the Commission, the State advised that three judicial proceedings were underway: a criminal proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, and the contentious-administrative proceeding. From the start, the State referred to the criminal proceeding against the crew of the UH1H aircraft.207 On December 28, 2005, following the Admissibility Report, the State maintained its position regarding the three proceedings and indicated that it was “conducting the pertinent investigations by the competent civil authorities according to the principle of the ordinary judge and, consequently, it is processing those presumably responsible for the facts.”208 On December 14, 2006, the State indicated that “the criminal proceeding underway in the 12th Criminal Court has established the identity of the victims and the decision on the criminal responsibility of the accused is pending,” and that “the Colombian authorities have conducted an adequate, effective, serious, independent and opportune investigation.”209 On July 13, 2011, following notification of 202 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 18, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 33. See also Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para.15. Indeed, Articles 35 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish the procedural opportunity for the Commission to offer expert evidence (in the brief submitting the case) and for the representatives of the presumed victims to present their pleadings and motions and offer evidence, based only on the factual determinations of the merits report. 203 Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, paras. 153 and 154; Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 242, para. 17, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 27. 204 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners”, para. 154, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 17. 205 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 58, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 52. 206 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 27. 207 On November 12, 2002, the State affirmed that “the investigation into the damage suffered as a result of the explosion of an explosive device in the village of Santo Domingo is being conducted by the military criminal justice system owing to a ruling on competence issued by the Superior Council of the Judicature,” and three military agents have been accused. Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on November 12, 2002 (evidence file, tome 5, folios 2072) 208 In addition, the State indicated that its responsibility “under domestic law, is defined as of an administrative nature; but evidence has been provided to the contentious-administrative proceedings in this case that allow the judge to have a high degree of certainty, which is expressed in the considering paragraphs of the ruling, about the factual circumstances and the type of responsibility of the agents, and this leads it to conclude that the type of State responsibility, is for a service offense (falla del servicio) […].” 209 In addition, the State “reaffirms […] that the competent entity to conduct the investigation, namely the Prosecutor General’s Office,” had verified some of the facts “in the ideal scenario to clarify what happened: the criminal proceeding with the interventions of the victims and those who had been negatively affected.” Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of December 14, 2006 (evidence file, tome 5, folios 2502). It also asserted that this “proved, with sufficient testimonial, documentary and technical evidence, that the deaths and personal injuries of which the civilian population of the village of ‐ 43 ‐