9 serves as a frame for the legal claims and the claims for reparations. During the proceedings of a contentious case before the Court, the timely procedural moment for the defendant State to accept or contest the central subject of the litigation is in its answer to the Commission’s application. Likewise, the procedural moment that allows the alleged victims, their family members or representatives to fully exercise their right of locus standi in judicio, as well as the corresponding faculty to complement the factual framework of the application, is the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence referred to in Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. To the contrary, lack of procedural activity or the late incorporation of the alleged victims and their representatives or of the State into the proceedings results in the impossibility for them to complement or question, as applicable, the facts and claims contained in the application. 19. According to Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is empowered to consider accepted the facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. Evidently, the Court is not obliged to do this in all cases in which a similar situation occurs. Thus, in exercise of its inherent powers to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence)37 in such circumstances, the Court determines the need to verify the facts as they were presented by the parties in each case or by taking into account other elements from the body of evidence. 20. In the instant case, in which the State did not answer the application, the Court considers that the State has accepted the facts set out in this document. Subsequently, in its brief of October 3, 2007 (supra paras. 4 and 14), the State submitted a version of the facts that, in general, coincided with most of the facts set out in the Commission’s application. As previously indicated, the State also referred to a supervening fact that would be relevant for Mr. Neptune and for the consideration of the case before this Court (supra paras. 4 and 14 and infra paras. 56 to 66). However, in this brief, Haiti did not refer directly to the legal claims and the claims for reparations submitted by the Inter-American Commission and by Mr. Neptune’s representative. 21. Hence, in exercise of its attributes as an international organ for the protection of human rights, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts and all the elements concerning the merits of the matter, together with the corresponding consequences, as the delivery of the judgment helps to avoid the repetition of similar facts and to satisfy the purposes of the Inter-American human rights jurisdiction.38 V EVIDENCE See also, the “Five Pensioners” v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153. 37 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 32, See also, Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 43, and Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 45. 38 Cf. Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 116; Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 25, and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 36, para. 34.