5 before this Court – including the States – and results from the understanding that the procedure, while relevant, is merely the instrument for applying the law. 27. The settlement punish the in defense procedure, procedural time limits merely contribute to ensuring that there is no delay in of the litigation. Accepting the expiry of a time period on a non-working day would party that exercised a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, of an extremely short, indeed insignificant, span of time for the course of the especially because the Court does not work on Sunday. 28. In conclusion, the brief of the victims’ representatives is entirely timely, because the day of expiry of the time limit was Sunday, a non-working day of the courts, and was therefore extended until the following day. II – Possibility of alleging violations that were not examined during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission 29. The State argued, in its answer, that the alleged violation of Article 28 of the American Convention (Federal Clause), an aspect of the Commission’s application, cannot be examined, because it had not been brought up previously during the proceedings before the Commission and also because the said provision does not establish a right or freedom, but merely some rules for the interpretation and application of the American Convention. 30. In addition to the well-founded reasons given in the judgment, I would like to add some elements that concur with the admission of allegations, even though they have not been brought up previously, since the legal issue has been approached and discussed. 31. The State also alleged that the violation Article 28 of the American Convention (Federal Clause) was introduced in the application merely as the result of an affirmation concerning the difficulty of communicating with the state of Paraná made during a working meeting before the Commission on compliance with the recommendations of Report on merits No. 14/07. 32. The Court’s ruling, with which I concur fully, is not to admit the arguments because: (1) the Commission has independence and autonomy to define the content of the application; (2) the inclusion in the application of the supposed failure by Brazil to comply with Article 28 of the Convention when the said provision appears in Report on merits No. 14/07 of the Commission is not contrary to the American Convention or to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; (3) during the processing of the application before the Court, Brazil had the opportunity to defend itself in relation to the alleged violation; hence the right to defense was not harmed; (4) in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention, the Court has competence to examine the non-compliance of provisions, irrespective of their legal nature (general obligation, law or norm of interpretation). 33. In particular, I would like to add a justification invoked by the victims’ representatives: the Court has the authority to examine violations of the articles of the Convention that have not been alleged by the parties, which is also supported by the Convention, by the iura novit curia principle, an interpretation that the Court has adopted on other occasions12 and of its consequent legal principle da mihi factum dabo tibi jus ([to the party] give me the fact, and I [the judge] will give you the law). 12 […] This Court also has the authority to analyze possible violation of articles of the Convention that were not included in the application brief and in the reply to the application, as well as in the representatives’ brief containing pleadings and motions, based on the principle of iura novit curia, firmly supported by international jurisprudence, “in the sense that the judge has the authority and even the duty to apply pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when the parties do not explicitly invoke them,” in the understanding that the parties will always be allowed to submit the pleadings and evidence they deem pertinent to support their position regarding all the legal provisions examined. Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 124 to 126; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 178; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 156; Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002, Series C No. 97, para. 58.