12 against Gladys Espinoza in 1993, and (iii) the actions taken in the new proceedings against Gladys Espinoza for terrorism in 2004, before the National Terrorism Chamber and, subsequently, before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which differed from the facts described by the Commission in that the said courts had been aware of the alleged torture and sexual violence against Gladys Espinoza, but had not ordered an investigation into these facts. Regarding the death of Rafael Salgado, the representatives indicated that “[e]ven though the facts included in this section are not being litigated in the instant case, [they] consider[ed] that they were relevant to establish the facts alleged by Gladys Carol Espinoza. 34. The State indicated that the “Commission [had] expressly indicated that this case refers solely to the supposed unlawful and arbitrary detention of Gladys [Espinoza], to the torture and inhuman detention conditions, and to the absence of investigations, and that it would abstain from ruling on the criminal proceedings brought against her and on her guilt or innocence, so that the representatives assertion […] that Gladys [Espinoza] had been over-penalized when the Supreme Court increased the punishment imposed ‘using discriminatory criteria and with a stereotypical view of women’ was an affirmation that had no relationship to this dispute before the Court.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 35. The factual framework of the proceedings before the Court consists of the facts contained in the Report on Admissibility and Merits submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to argue new facts that diverge from those contained in the said report, without prejudice to including those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court’s consideration (also known as “complementary facts”). 12 The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings. Ultimately, it is the Court’s task to decide in each case on the admissibility of arguments relating to the factual framework in order to protect the procedural balance of the parties. 13 36. In its Report on Admissibility and Merits, the Commission expressly excluded the facts related to the criminal proceedings brought against Gladys Espinoza from the factual framework of the case, including only her “supposed unlawful and arbitrary detention, [and the] presumed torture and inhuman detention conditions to which she had been subjected, as well as the alleged absence of investigations in this regard.” In addition, the Commission made no mention of the alleged first detention and acquittal of Gladys Espinoza for the crime of terrorism in 1987 and 1988, respectively. The Court considers that the facts alleged by the representatives in their motions and arguments brief and indicated supra in points (i), (ii) and (iii) are not merely explaining, clarifying or rejecting the facts presented by the Commission in its Report on Admissibility and Merits and, therefore, introduce elements that do not form part of it. Consequently, based on the Court’s consistent case law (supra para. 35), this series of facts alleged by the representatives does not form part of the factual framework submitted to the Court’s consideration by the Commission. 37. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, in its analysis of the alleged violation of Gladys Espinoza’s rights to judicial guarantees and protection, the Commission referred to the fact that, in 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme 12 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 25. 13 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 28.