26 measures of reparation, for which it will also take into consideration that expressed by the State regarding the reparations that it “accepts” and the objections it presented to some of the measures of reparation requested. VI PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS 160. In this chapter the Court will present some consideration regarding the events object of the present case, and the determination of the alleged victims. A) REGARDING THE FACTS OBJECT OF THE PRESENT CASE 161. It is necessary to consider two matters in this subject. On one hand, the Commission and the intervener do not coincide in the description of some of the facts occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992; on the other, in what refers to the facts occurred after May 9 1992, the Commission included in the application less facts than those developed by the common intervener. 162. Before issuing a ruling on these matters, the Court reaffirms its jurisprudence in what refers to the determination of the facts, in the sense that, in principle, “the claiming of new facts different to those presented in the application is not admissible, without detriment of the possibility to present those that explain, clarify, or dismiss those that have been mentioned in the application, or respond to the demands of the petitioner,” as well as with the exception of supervening facts.7 Likewise, the Tribunal reiterates that it has the power to make its own determination of the facts of the case and to decide on aspects of law not claimed by the parties based on the principle of iura novit curia. That is, even though the petition is the factual framework of the proceedings, this does not present a limitation to the Court’s power to determine the facts of the case, based on the evidence produced, on supervening events, on complementary and contextual information included in the case file, as well as in notorious facts or of public knowledge, 8 that the Tribunal considers appropriate to include within said facts. 163. On the other hand, the Court has taken note that in paragraph 79 of the petition the Commission stated that it wishes to point out that the object of the present application transcends what refers to the enactment and application of the antiterrorism legislation in Peru, in virtue of which some of the victims were imprisoned, since it is not the subject of the facts claimed and proven. Likewise, it is important to notice that during the proceeding before the Commission the possible international responsibility of the State for the regretful death of a police officer that occurred in the development of the same facts that motivate the present case was not analyzed, as well as the injuries caused to others. The State must investigate said facts and punish those responsible, however, the State’s responsibility in this sense was not claimed before the Commission. 7 Cfr. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 89; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 68; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 57. 8 Cfr. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 191; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 55; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59.