23 of these facts from the application, as the State would claim. Finally, they warned that “the State seeks to ignore the conclusions issued by its own judicial authorities in this regard, as well as the specific conclusions of the Final Report of the [CVR].” C.2. Considerations of the Court 66. First, with regard to the State’s allegation that the Commission failed to comply with Article 35(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure because it “did not indicate which of the facts contained in the [Admissibility and Merits] Report were submitted to the consideration of the Court,” the Court understands that, when the Commission indicated that “it decided to submit this case to the Inter-American Court because of the need to obtain justice for the [alleged] victims,” without expressly excluding any fact, it evidently submitted all the facts of the case to the consideration of the Court, in application of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes that “[t]he case shall be presented to the Court through the submission of a report […] which must establish all the facts that allegedly gave rise to the violations […].” 67. Secondly, regarding the State’s request that the Court exclude from the present proceedings the entire set of facts in the pleadings and motions brief aimed at proving the alleged violation of the right to property and non-interference in private and family life, the Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Report on Admissibility and Merits submitted for its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in said report, although they may present those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, provided these are related to the facts of the case. 48 68. In this regard, the Court notes that in the instant case, the Commission established in paragraphs 109 and 111 of its Admissibility and Merits Report the following factual considerations: i) “military personnel raided the homes of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán, located in the Laccaypampa area of the Rodeo Pampa sector, […] where they [….] caused damage and seized animals and other property”, and ii) “when [Zósimo Hilario Quispe in the company of some representatives of the community,] reached the spot, they […found] burned-out houses, food, clothing and other property strewn on the ground.” It also established the following legal considerations in paragraphs 184 and 224 of said Report: i) “on July 4, 1991, the ‘Escorpio’ patrol, in execution of Operation ‘Apolonia’ […], raided the homes of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán”, and ii) “Mr. Zósimo Hilario Quispe learned that on July 6, 1991, that […] his home had been burned down. Likewise, the [Commission] has proven that Mr. Ramón Hilario Morán [and his family] were removed from the other house that was raided.” 69. For their part, the representatives alleged that, in the context of the “Apolonia” military operation, State agents stole money, livestock, provisions and other valuable property that they found in the homes of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán. They described the items that were allegedly stolen, and maintained that said agents set fire to the homes. 70. Thus, the Court concludes that the facts alleged by the representatives explain and clarify the acts of destruction and theft of animals and other property, as well as the destruction and burning of houses by State agents mentioned in Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Report. Consequently, the Court does not consider the State’s objection to be admissible. The facts alleged by the representatives regarding the theft and destruction of property and the burning of homes will be considered as part of the factual framework, and the Court will analyze them in the corresponding chapters. 48 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 47.