6 17. Despite the above, the Court will examine the State’s argument on the admissibility of the pleadings and motions brief and the evidence provided with it, in the chapter of this judgment concerning evidence (infra paras. 57 to 64). B) Impossibility of alleging violations that were not considered during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission 18. The State indicated that the violation of Article 28 of the American Convention11 was not alleged during the proceedings before the Commission, but was included in the application after the State had mentioned the difficulty of communicating with the state of Paraná in the course of a working meeting between the litigants before the Inter-American Commission concerning compliance with the recommendations included in Report on Merits No. 14/07. It also alleged that the said provision does not establish a right or freedom, but rather rules for the interpretation and application of the Convention, and that this treaty, particularly its Articles 48(1) and 63, are clear when they stipulate that the organs of the inter-American system can only examine possible violations of rights and freedoms. Consequently, the Court should not assess the alleged violation of Article 28 of the Convention. 19. The Commission argued that “Article 28 of the American Convention is not merely a rule of interpretation […]. This norm establishes obligations, compliance with which can be verified and ruled on by the supervisory organs of the inter-American system in the same way as the obligations arising from Articles 1(1), 2, 26 and 27 of the Convention.” It also indicated that the State did not deny that it had used the supposed difficulties in coordination between the Federal authorities and those of the state of Paraná as a defense during the proceedings before the Commission. It was Brazil’s position that led the Commission to include this matter in the Report on Merits in the case and, consequently, in the application submitted to the Court. Therefore, the Commission asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection. 20. The representatives refuted the State’s assertion that Article 28 of the Convention cannot be included among the alleged violations and agreed with the Commission that this Article is not merely a norm of interpretation, but establishes obligations for the States Parties by expressly specifying that federal States must comply with all the provisions of the Convention. They also affirmed that the Court had recognized that “facts that occur after the application has been filed can be presented to the Court up until it has delivered judgment. As regards the inclusion of new Articles, the Commission and the [representatives] are legally authorized to [submit them to the Court], in the understanding […] that, failing to admit this possibility would restrict their status as subjects of international law.” Lastly, they indicated that the Court has the authority to examine violations of the Articles of the Convention that have not been alleged by the parties based on the iura novit curia principle. * * * 21. The Court observes that the State’s argument corresponds to a preliminary objection, whose purpose is to prevent the Court from examining the alleged failure to comply with Article 28 of the American Convention on the “federal clause”. 22. When, the Commission’s actions concerning the proceedings before it are questioned as a preliminary objection, the Court has stated that the American Convention establishes 11 Cf. infra note 190.