must have put forward specific arguments showing that the case is framed within a particular context, something that did not occur in this matter in relation to the threats and repression for defending the environment. For that reason, in another case, the Court refused to rule on certain facts which, although presented as “contextual background concerning the history of the dispute,” were found not to have been brought before the Court “as a matter to be decided by the Court.” 54 It is a different matter when the Commission considers that a fact which the Court considers as proven does not produce a particular violation or omits to argue that it produces a violation. In these cases, the Court has applied the principle of iura novit curia to declare the existence of a violation not alleged by the Commission. 60. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to rule on facts alleged by the representatives which were not presented as such in the application by the Commission, that is, regarding the threats allegedly suffered by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel before their arrest and after their release from prison, the alleged repression they allegedly suffered because of their work in defense of the environment, and the suffering allegedly experienced by the families of the presumed victims. Similarly, the Court shall not rule on the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 16 of the American Convention in relation to those facts. 2. Alleged contextual facts 61. The Commission and the representatives referred to several contextual facts, particularly, “the abuses committed by military forces based in the state of Guerrero,” some patterns in the use of torture in Mexico, and the impact this has on judicial proceedings, as well as the “use of the military jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations.” 62. The State denied any link between this case with the context mentioned and pointed out that the latter is not part of the object of this case. It requested that the Court base its decisions solely on the case file of the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims for the purpose of determining what happened to Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. It indicated that “any other characterization” of what occurred “is nothing more than an improper attempt to introduce into the litigation issues unrelated to the facts of the case.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in the event that the Court should decide to assess the said context, the State presented several arguments to refute what it considers to be unfounded generalizations that would have specific implications for the concrete facts of this case. 63. This Court has held that in cases involving highly complex facts, in which the existence of patterns or practices of massive, systematic or structural human rights violations are alleged, it is difficult to seek a strict delimitation of the facts. Thus, the case submitted to the Court cannot be examined piecemeal or trying to exclude those contextual elements that could inform the international judge about the historical, material, temporal and spatial circumstances in which the alleged facts took place. Nor is it necessary to specify or categorize each alleged fact, because the dispute submitted can only be settled based on an assessment of all the circumstances described, 55 in light of the body of evidence. 64. Likewise, the Court has considered that, when assessing elements of context, in general terms, it does not seek to rule on overall phenomena related to 54 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C N° 172, para. 16. 55 Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 50. 24