Convention, because it fulfills specific functions that benefit both the individual petitioners and the States.38 37. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the request to consider Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil a presumed victim in this case is inadmissible. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the State, at its own discretion, from adopting measures of reparation in his favor if it verifies the similarity with the facts of this case.39 B) Determination of the factual framework 38. Under Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission presents the case “by the submission of the report to which article 50 of the Convention refers, which must establish all the facts that allegedly give rise to a violation,” and that “for the case to be examined, the Court shall receive the following information: […] (e) the evidence received, including the audio and the transcript, indicating the alleged facts and the arguments that refer to them.” Consequently, the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Legally, the presumed victims and their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided they abide by the facts contained in the said document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention.40 39. Nevertheless, as regards the factual framework, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in the Merits Report, although they may describe those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in this Report and submitted to the Court’s consideration.41 In the instant case, in their arguments, the common interveners cited facts that were not included in the Merits Report or, if they were, were not described in detail. In the following sections the Court will analyze whether it can consider that the facts cited in this way explain, clarify or reject the facts contained in the Merits Report. 1. The pre-trial detention measures 40. In the motions and arguments briefs, the common interveners of the representatives argued the violation of the rights to personal liberty and to the principle of the presumption of innocence, protected in Articles 7 and 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to the pre-trial detention measures to which the presumed victims were subject. 41. The Commission did not rule on the right to personal liberty in its Merits Report, merely referring to the “pre-trial detention” imposed on Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao and Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán. In the motions and arguments briefs, CEJIL referred to the pre-trial detention of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, and the FIDH to that of José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Pascual Huetequeo Pichún Paillalao and Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán. 42. Chile did not present arguments or preliminary objections, or substantial objections in relation to the factual framework of the case. In its answering brief, it indicated, in general, that it rejected “each and every one of the human rights violations attributed to it in the 38 Cf. Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Decision of the Court of November 13, 1981. Series A No. 101/81, paras. 22 to 25, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of January 19, 2009, considerandum 45. 39 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 111, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 252. 40 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 Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 19. 41 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, para. 153, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 27. 15