62 legal proceeding. 176. The representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin also argued that the State violated Article 17 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims, because the State, instead of protecting the institution of the family, eliminated two members of the Gómez Paquiyauri family, harassed and persecuted the surviving members who filed a complaint regarding the facts, and left the daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri and of his companion fatherless. Pleadings of the State 177. The State referred neither to the alleged violation of Article 11 of the American Convention, nor to the alleged violation of Article 17 of that same treaty in the instant case. Considerations of the Court 178. First, the Court will refer to the possibility of claiming other facts or rights that were not included in the application. Regarding the facts that are the object of the proceeding, the Court has already established that “it is not admissible to allege new facts, distinct from those presented in the application, without detriment to setting forth those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the application, or be consistent with the claims of the plaintiff.”131 However, in the case of supervening facts, which occur after any of the main briefs in the proceeding have been filed (the application; the written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, and the reply to the application), these may be alleged at any stage of the proceeding, before the judgment is issued.132 179. On the other hand, the Court has already admitted that the representatives of the alleged victims and/or their next of kin may allege rights other than those stated by the Commission in its application.133 In this regard, the Court has deemed that alleged victims are “the holders of all the rights embodied in the American Convention and, if [it] were not admissible [for them to claim new rights], it would be an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of international human rights law”.134 Nevertheless, the Court has qualified that, regarding the rights claimed for the first time by the representatives of the alleged victims and/or their next of kin, this “refers to facts that are already contained in the application.”135 In this regard, the Court has also applied the iura novit curia principle, “on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties 131 Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 153; see Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224. 132 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 154. 133 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 134; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 155. 134 Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 155; and see Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, paras. 127 and 128; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224. 135 Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 155; and see Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224.