51 representatives alleged that, although “the homes were [not] burned down [in the instant case], this does not mean that the same conclusion cannot be reached when the use and enjoyment of property is adversely affected by forced displacement that makes it necessary to abandon property that has provided the family with a means of improving their situation and a way of life.” 172. The Commission did not allege the violation of this Article. 173. Citing the Court's case law, the State indicated that “a violation of the right to honor occurs when the public defamation of the person or persons affected is fully verified and when the State has tolerated the defamation, subjecting the victims and their next of kin ‘to hate, public contempt, harassment, and discrimination.’” Thus, according to the State, “the fact that Mr. […] Valle [Jaramillo] was charged in a criminal action […] cannot lead to the erroneous conclusion that the complaint against him was designed to violate his right to honor.” The State also indicated that the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention, based on the declarations of the departmental authorities of Antioquia, “is not supported by any evidence, but is based on a series of circumstantial elements taken out of context by the representatives in order to supposedly establish that Mr. Valle Jaramillo was subjected to a public loss of prestige.” In addition, it indicated that “[u]nder Colombian law, […] slander and libel are defined as offenses; therefore, if it is considered that an affirmation by a private individual or a public official is false or dishonorable, a complaint based on these offenses can be filed before a competent judicial authority, for the latter to decide whether what was said was true or false.” Regarding the violation of this article to the detriment of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his next of kin, the State considered that, contrary to the Court’s findings in the Ituango Massacres case, the connection between the right to property and the right to honor was not applicable in this case, “because the destruction or arson of the home of Mr. […] Jaramillo [Correa] by State forces has never been proved.” Accordingly, citing the Court's case law, the State emphasized that “the violation of Article 11 of the Convention does not occur autonomously” and that, in any case, “the harm to Mr. Jaramillo Correa’s property could have resulted from […] the displacement he suffered,” for which the State acknowledged its responsibility. 174. Bearing in mind that the Commission did not allege the violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate that the alleged victim, his next of kin, or his representatives may invoke different rights from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented by the Commission.126 On this point, the Court has stated that it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those described in the application, without detriment to setting out facts that can explain, clarify, or reject the facts mentioned in the application or respond to the claims of the plaintiff. It has also indicated that the exception to this rule operates in the case of supervening facts, that is, facts that occur after the briefs in the proceedings (the application, the brief with pleadings and motions, and the brief answering the application) have been submitted.127 175. In this regard, the Court observes that the representatives alleged the violation of Article 11 of the Convention, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and his next of kin, as well as to the detriment of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his next of kin, based on the facts described in paragraphs 38 and 52, respectively, of the Commission’s application. In Chapter IV of this judgment, the Court noted that the State had 126 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 13, para. 155; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 118, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 212. 127 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 13, paras. 84 and 154; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 46, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 228.