the Inter-American Commission in the application. Indeed, in this document, the Commission formulated pleadings of fact and law with regard to the alleged detentions of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura carried out in September and October 2003, respectively, to his alleged detention and enforced disappearance as of October 3, 2003, to the alleged lack of an investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for his disappearance, and to the alleged physical and psychological effects on his family members as a consequence of the facts (supra para. 2 and 3). 52. According to the reiterated jurisprudence of the Tribunal, the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of other rights distinct from the ones covered in the application as long as the alleged violations relate to facts already contained in that document, as the alleged victims are the bearers of all the rights enshrined in the Convention. Indeed, the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceeding before the Court. For this reason, the representatives may not allege new facts other than those alleged in the application, without prejudice to those facts which allow for the explanation, clarification, or dismissal of facts that have been stated in the application or in response to the claims set forth by the applicant. 30 The exceptions to this principle are classified as supervening and can be submitted before the Tribunal at any stage of the proceedings prior to the rendering of the judgment. In sum, it falls to the Court to safeguard procedural balance by deciding in each case whether to admit pleadings of that nature. 31 Therefore, the Tribunal will not rule on facts alleged by the representatives that are not contained in the application presented by the Commission, nor on facts that do not explain, clarify, or invalidate those presented by the Commission. Consequently, neither will the Court rule on allegations of law formulated by the representatives based on such facts. Therefore, the Court will not rule on the allegations raised by the representatives in relation to “Citizen Security and Human Rights” and, by extension, the alleged violations of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 25, and 26 of the American Convention; 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture; III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the “Protocol of San Salvador.” B.2. Provisional Measures. 53. In addition, in its response to the application, the State expressly indicated that the statements of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives on the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina “should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of ruling on this case, because although the facts of both proceedings are related, at issue are two different proceedings that cannot be taken into consideration jointly.” It also argued that “issues related to the processing of provisional measures cannot be taken under consideration in the context of an adversarial case.” The State explicitly rejected “all reference to the beneficiaries of the [measures] and [to] the [representatives’] submission of documentation made under the framework of those measures.” 54. The Court notes that upon referring, in its application, to the proceedings on provisional and precautionary measures, the Commission did not formulate allegations of fact and law in that respect. It may be inferred from the pertinent paragraphs that the mention of those proceedings serves only to place into context the facts that form part of the factual framework of the case, with respect to which the Commission did allege certain human rights violations. However, this does not occur with respect to some allegations made by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions, 30 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 59; Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 32, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 42. 31 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 58; Case of Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 43, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 32. 18