12 supervening facts and evidence. The opposite would mean that the Commission and the petitioners would both be applicants filing their separate applications. If the Court were to accept the interpretation that the petitioners can make additional legal determinations, the capacity of the Commission or of the State to submit the application would be meaningless, as it would not constitute the framework of the proceeding, which is […] what Article 61 […] of the Convention specifies. This article is in force [and] it is fully applicable as long as it has not been annulled in another international instrument at the same level. […] To summarize, the brief submitted in this case by the representatives is not just a written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, [but rather] it goes beyond the capacities set forth in the Convention and the Rules of Procedure, as it includes new claims or new rights that have not been analyzed by the Commission and that in fact constitute a true application. In addition to the aforementioned arguments, another equally important one is that this creates a procedural imbalance, as it entails that the State must actually answer two applications. This imbalance is not corrected exclusively by granting additional time for observations. The State must actually address and is addressing one more party to the proceeding. Due to all the above, [the] State […] asks the […] Court to […] consider [that] the capacity of the petitioners to autonomously submit their pleadings to the Court should be restricted to the factual and legal arguments included in the application filed by the Inter-American Commission […] This will ensure respect for the legal framework of its participation, in light of Articles 61(1) of the Convention, 44 and 23 and 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 54. In its final written pleadings, the State added: [that] it rejects the account and assessment of the facts contained in section B “The Paramilitary operation in Mapiripán” of the representatives’ brief and it asks the […] Court to take into account as proven facts those included in the criminal judgments and disciplinary rulings specified. The State also rejects the assessments and conclusions included in section C “Destruction of Evidence and Obstruction of Justice,” such as the “deliberate ineffectiveness of the State”, as well as its decontextualized vision of “Domestic Judicial Actions”, and it also firmly rejects the statements included in the section on “Paramilitarism in Colombia,” which do not reflect Colombian reality. Likewise, the State rejects the accounts of the facts prior to those that took place between July 15 and 20, 1997, which are not the object of the instant case, and which were expressed by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin during the public hearings on March 7 and 8, 2005. Neither the facts stated in the final oral pleadings at the hearing nor those explicitly rejected that were included in the brief constitute supervening facts, that is, facts that took place subsequent to the filing of the application, to filing of the brief by the representatives or to its reply to the application. Instead, they are alleged new facts and as presented, they supposedly took place before the facts that are the object of this case, and in different places. When they so allege these facts, the representatives go beyond their capacity, as their role is subject to the factual limits of the application filed by the Commission, regarding which the State has furthermore accepted the facts contained in section B of Chapter VI, “The Facts of July 1997”. In the case […] of the Five Pensioners versus Peru, a jurisprudence that only has effects inter partes, regarding the inclusion by the petitioners of rights other than those included in the application, the […] Court […] deemed that the petitioners can invoke said rights because it is the individuals who are entitled to the rights embodied in the American Convention. […] The State does not share this aspect of the […] Court’s position, as it deems that said interpretation is in contradiction with the provisions set forth in Article 61(1) of the Convention, [since] only the State or the Commission can file the application before the Court […]