indeed represented all the alleged victims. In response, on September 26, 2012 Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda confirmed that, together with B.A., she represented all the alleged victims in this case. Thus, in compliance with Article 39(1) of the Rules, the submission of this case was notified to the parties and to the Commission. 40. On February 14, 2014, upon the instructions of the President of the Court, the representatives were required to submit, as evidence to facilitate adjudication, the powers of attorney issued by the alleged victims in this case. Accordingly, on February 28, 2014 the representatives submitted a document signed by “the sons, daughters and grandchildren of [A.A.]” 36 on February 24, 2014, before a notary public, in which they stated that: [i]n May 2012, we expressed our agreement in a private document that the case be submitted to the Inter-American Court […], and we ratify everything expressed by [B.A.] and Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda on our behalf during the proceeding followed until that date, and [we] the [presumed] victims confirm that [they] have acted on our behalf and with our consent; and that we have been kept informed at all times about the course of the proceedings. Likewise, through this document, we expressly grant [B.A.] and Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda the power to represent us before the Inter-American System […], even after the corresponding Judgment has been issued. 41. The Court considers that the brief issued in May 2012, and the mandate accepted on September 26, 2012, are effective, and were made effective upon B.A. and Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda exercising the representation on behalf of all the alleged victims and participating in the various procedural acts before the Court (supra paras. 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11). Furthermore, their standing as representatives of the alleged victims was confirmed in the power of attorney submitted to the Court on February 28, 2014, as evidence to facilitate adjudication. Consequently, the Court dismisses the State’s objection. B) Factual framework B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 42. The State argued that a number of incongruities, contradictions and inconsistencies exist between the facts which constitute the factual framework established in Merits Report No. 56/12, and those presented by the petitioners in their brief of pleadings and motions. Consequently, it requested that the Court declare inadmissible the action filed against it and, in the event of its objection being dismissed, that it be declared partially valid, arguing that the brief of pleadings and motions does not comply with the sine qua non requirements established in Article 40(2) of the Court’s Rules, and therefore should not be admitted. Furthermore, in its final written arguments, the State explained that it was not calling for these alleged contradictions, inconsistencies and incongruities to be assessed separately, i.e. one by one, but rather that the objective was to show the lack of agreement and legitimacy in the arguments presented by the representatives. 43. The Commission pointed out that the alleged contradictions, incongruities or inconsistencies cited by the State are not evident in any of the points raised, and that the facts referred to by the representatives form part of the factual framework defined by the Commission. The representatives argued that the account of the facts contained in the brief of pleadings and motions fits into the factual framework established by the Commission, and denied that any contradictions exist in that account. In particular, they noted that five of the alleged contradictions explain or clarify aspects that are already included in the factual framework, while the four remaining ones refer to facts that had already been proven, the recounting of the same facts but with different words and the questions raised about their veracity. B.2. Considerations of the Court 44. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the case before it is comprised of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts, distinct from those presented in said report, without detriment to setting forth those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts 36 and N.A. The brief was signed by D.A., E.A., B.A., F.A., G.A., I.A., P.A., O.A., Q.A., Z.A., S.A., R.A., J.A., L.A., M.A. 14