37 Articles 23(1)(c) of the American Convention,160 in the Report on Merits No. 62/07 the Commission considered that “the facts argued by the petitioner as violations of political rights, were already analyzed in the section regarding the right to judicial protection and, in that sense, it does not consider it necessary to evaluate them in light of Article 23 of the American Convention.”161 135. Taking into account that the violation of Article 23(1)(c) was not argued by the Inter-American Commission, the Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of other rights different to those included in the application, since they are the bearers of all the rights enshrined in the Convention, as long as they refer to facts already included in the application, 162 which constitutes the factual framework of the proceeding. 163 The purpose of this possibility is to make effective the procedural power of locus standi in judicio acknowledged to them in the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, without this invalidating the conventional limitations to their participation and the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction, or a infringement or violation of the State’s right to a defense, since the latter has the procedural opportunities to respond to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives during all the stages of the process. Finally, it corresponds to the Court to decide in each case the admissibility of arguments of that nature in protection of the procedural balance of the parties.164 136. On the other hand, just as the timely procedural moment for the accused State to accept or object the central object of the case is the defendant’s response, the moment during which the alleged victims or their representatives fully exercise that right of locus standi in judicio is the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence.165 137. In the present case, the arguments of the representatives regarding the alleged violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention were filed before the Tribunal in their brief of pleadings and motions and they are based on facts contemplated in the Commission’s application. Therefore, the Court will analyze those arguments. The fact that the Commission did not consider it necessary to evaluate the facts as a violation of political rights in its Report on Merits does not prevent the Court from issuing a ruling, since “the Court is not bound by what has previously been decided by the Commission; on the contrary, it is empowered to issue judgments freely, 160 In Admissibility Report No. 60/06, the Commission considered that “in the event that the arguments of the petitioners are proven in what refers to not having access and the guarantee of continuance in the public service, in general conditions of equality, violations of Articles 23 (1) (C) and 24 of the American Convention could be determined.” Admissibility Report No. 60/06, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, issued by the Inter-American Commission on July 25, 2006 (dossier of annexes to the application, Volume I, annex B, folio 35, para. 32). 161 Cf. Merits Report No. 62/07, Case 12,565, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, issued by the InterAmerican Commission on July 27, 2007 (dossier of annexes to the application, Volume I, annex A, folio 24, para. 99). 162 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 52, para. 155; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 32, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 127. 163 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 10, para. 30, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 32. 164 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 163, para. 58; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 10, para. 228, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 32. 165 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 18 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 33.