of Guatemala following the ruling of the Constitutional Court will be considered, as pertinent, in order to define the scope of the State obligation to ensure access to effective judicial remedies to the presumed victims in this case. 151. The Court also notes that the Commission did not refer in its Merits Report to administrative contracting laws and practice or to acts of corruption that could have represented an obstacle to the effective use of the available resources. 152. In this regard, the Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in that report, without prejudice to presenting those that explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. The exception to this principle are facts classified as supervening or when facts come to light or there is access to evidence about them subsequently, provided that such facts are related to the facts of the proceedings.176 These considerations include the context presented by the Commission in its Merits Report, which forms part of the factual framework of a case before this Court. 177 Ultimately, it corresponds to the Court to decide, in each case, on the admissibility of arguments concerning the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance between the parties. 178 153. Bearing in mind that some of the facts that are the purpose of the dispute – for example, those that presumably constitute a violation of the principle of progressivity owing to the alleged legal barriers concerning intellectual property, administrative contracting laws and practice, and alleged corruption – are not included in the factual framework submitted by the Commission, the Court considers that, in this case, it is not admissible to rule on whether they constitute the basis for a violation of the principle of progressivity contained in Article 26 of the Convention. B.5. The violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity 154. The Court recalls that one of the disputes in this case relates to whether the State is responsible for the effects that the medical care provided by the State – or the lack of it – may have had on the personal integrity and life of the presumed victims in the case. The Commission argued that the lack of adequate and comprehensive medical care had a serious impact on their personal integrity and on their life, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 4(1) of the Convention. The representatives argued that the State had violated the rights to life, to a decent life, and to personal integrity based on the death of 13 persons as a result of opportunistic infections, and the harm to the physical and psychological health of the presumed victims owing to the inadequate medical treatment, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 4(1) of the Convention. The Court will proceed to examine these two allegations. B.5.1. Analysis of the right to life 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 148. 176 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306., para. 48, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 65. 177 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 148. 178 53