proceedings before it delivers judgment, 47 provided these are related to the facts of the proceedings. 48 It is for the Court to determine the need to prove the facts, as presented by the parties, or taking into account other elements of the body of evidence, 49 provided the parties’ right to defense and the object of the litigation are respected. 57. In this case, the Court finds that in its report on admissibility, the Commission expressly stated that the petitioners alleged that all the violations they suffered were due to their work in defense of the environment. 50 However, in its merits report, the Commission considered that those allegations “were neither legally nor factually connected to its admissibility report.” 51 Subsequently, in its application – which establishes the factual framework of the case – the Commission only sets out as facts of the case that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were members of the OEPSP and that they received four awards for their defense of the environment; that, after their release, the alleged victims had not returned to Guerrero and that each one had requested asylum in a foreign country. 52 58. In addition, unlike other contextual referents that were alleged by the Commission and will be analyzed subsequently (infra para. 65), the Commission did not assume that the work of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, the threats they allegedly suffered and the repression against defenders of the environment were related to the object of the case or were issues that should be decided by the Court and, therefore, that the violations alleged are based on said threats and repression. Furthermore, in its application the Commission did not include facts related to the desperation and anguish that the alleged victims’ families presumably suffered as a result of the alleged violations. The Commission in no way included the relatives as alleged victims in its report on the merits or in the application. 59. In this respect, on previous occasions the Court has settled the question of whether a particular case forms part of a context in its analysis of the merits of the case, and has found that “there are not sufficient facts in the case file for the Court to decide that the […] case is framed within the [context] situation” alleged by the Commission. 53 However, in order to conduct such an analysis, the Commission 47 Similarly, Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 43, para. 154; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 69; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 134. 48 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 43, para. 155; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C N° 205, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 49. 49 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico; supra note 30 and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47. 50 In submitting their application to the Commission, the representatives based their case on “the actions and various mobilizations undertaken” by the OEPSP and alleged “a strong wave of repression against members of [this organization] by means of arbitrary arrests, torture, murders, and forced disappearances.” They added that “as a consequence of their environmental struggle, the peasants who form part of the OEPSP […] began to receive various death threats, such as those received by Mr. Montiel in […] 1998.” Cf. petition for an admissibility report filed on June 3, 2003 (file of attachments to the application, annex 3, volume III, page 958) and request for the opening of the case against the United Mexican States filed on October 25, 2001 (file of attachments to the application, annex III, volume III, page 1186). In their observations on the merits of the case, the petitioners provided further arguments and evidence related to this hypothesis and indicated that the violations alleged in the present case form part of “a broader pattern of reprisals for their independent actions as members of the OEPSP. Cf. Observations on the Merits of February 3, 2006, para. 171 (File of attachments to the application, annex 3, volume III, page 872). 51 Cf. Merits Report N° 88/08, para. 203, supra note 3, page 271. 52 Cf. Application brief, paras. 42, 43 and 83 (Merits file, volume I, pages 13 and 38). 53 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 165, para. 64. 23