82 facts described in the application” inasmuch as the attacks were also committed on account of the gender of such people, resulting, as a consequence, in an attack specially addressed to women, recurring and tolerated by the State. 290. As has been previously mentioned (supra para. 32 to 34) under the terms of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the Court, during the procedure of a contentious case before this Tribunal, the appropriate procedural moment that allows the alleged victims, their next-of-kin or representatives to fully exercise their right of locus standi in judicio is the brief of pleadings and motions. Although the representatives are able to submit their own requests and arguments in the proceedings before this Court, respecting the adversarial principle, and the procedural principles of defense and due process, this possibility does not exempt them from presenting them at the first procedural opportunity granted to them for this purpose; that is, in their requests and arguments brief281. In spite of the fact that the representatives did not allege the violation of said Convention of Belem do Pará at the appropriate procedural opportunity, the Court shall make a decision regarding this argument. 291. In the case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, the Court set the scope of Article 5 of the American Convention as to the aspects specific to violence against woman, taking into consideration as a reference of interpretation the relevant provisions of the Convention of Belem do Pará and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, since these treaties supplement the international corpus juris in matter of protection of women’s right to humane treatment, of which the American Convention forms part282. In this sense, the Court held that besides the protection granted by Article 5 of the American Convention, Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Pará expressly states that the States must ensure that the state authorities and agents abstain from any action or practice of violence against women283. 292. The Court notes that the representatives based their arguments, mainly, on quantitative criteria to allege that the aggressive acts were caused “because of the sex” of the alleged victims. Whereas in the final oral arguments they alleged that “of the facts of the instant case contained in the application, 29 attacks and insults, that is, 80%, were committed against female reporters of Globovisión”, in the final written arguments they alleged that of the 44 victims, 13 are women, representing in this way a 30%. In their final written arguments, the representatives emphasized two facts in particular. 293. This Tribunal notes that they refer to an incident occurring on “December 10, 2008” against Mrs. Yesenia Balza. Assuming that the date is a material error and that the referred fact is the incident that occurred on December 10, 2001 (supra para. 174 to 177), it is an alleged and non-disputed fact that Mrs. Balza was three months pregnant at that time. Nevertheless, the representatives have not established the grounds of the way in which the described fact reveals that the attack suffered by Mrs. Balza had a reason or purpose, or at least, a connotation or effect based on the sex or gender of the victim or in her condition of pregnancy. 294. Besides, the representatives alleged that some publications of pro-government newspapers referred to Mrs. Carla Angola in ways that “denigrated her as a woman […] and also incited the public to deeply offend her and rape her” The Court notes that the application only makes reference to three facts involving Mrs. Angola, namely, the incidents 281 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 68, para. 225. 282 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro- Castro Prison V. Perú, supra note 36, para. 276. 283 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro- Castro Prison V. Perú, supra note 36, para. 292.