28 88. The representatives alleged that “the violent and arbitrary entrance to the residence of Germán Escue and his family's constituted a violation of Article 11(2) [...] of the Convention," to the detriment of Mr. Escué Zapata and his relatives. Afterwards, in the final arguments, the representatives sustained that the “illegal and arbitrary search to the community’s store” would also violate the “honor and dignity of Paez People.” 89. The Commission did not allege a violation of such right. 90. The State denied the arguments submitted by the representatives by stating that “regardless of the fact that the State agents burst into the residence […] in which Germán Escué Zapata was and detained him in an illegal and arbitrary manner, it has not been proved that this entrance has had another consequences." As to the alleged search of the community store, the State alleged that such arguments are based on "new facts not included in the Commission's application." 91. The Court observes that even though Article 11 of the Convention is called "Protection to the Privacy,” such article has a widen content that includes the protection of the home, the private life, the family and the correspondence. 92. The Court has determined that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights other than those asserted in the petition filed before the Commission, on the basis of the facts described therein.96 Thus, the Court observes that the alleged violent entrance to the residence of the victim and his family appears in the complaint, so that it does not constitute a new fact and can, indeed, be analyzed by the Tribunal. However, the alleged search of the community store does not infer from the complaint nor was it analyzed in the Report 96/05 of the Commission. By the same token, the members of Paez People have not been designated as victims by the Commission. Thus, the facts will not be analyzed. 93. The Court observes that there is a controversy among the parties with respect to the facts. As it has been previously mentioned, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the entrance of the militaries to the residence was violent, since they have broken the door. The evidence they furnished demonstrates such fact.97 Moreover, the State declared that the victim's brother, Mr. Aldemar Escué, was who "opened the door" in order for the militaries to enter. The evidence the State furnishes to sustain such fact involves the statements of Mr. Aldemar Escué and his companion Omaira Escué Coicue. The first of them stated that: I […] opened the door[,] since they were saying that if we did not open it, they would have to break it, that is why I opened the door. Mrs. Omaira Escué Coicue confirmed that version of the facts by saying that: They arrived and knocked the door and ordered us to open it because it was the Army, I got up because they said that if we did not open the door, they would have to take it down, so I said to Aldemar to open it. [W]hen we opened the door, they entered […]. 96 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 121; y Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra note 20, para. 280. 97 Cf. Statement rendered by Hidelbran Castro Quintero on March 17, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 3, page 2389); statement rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on December 4, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 1, page 1905); statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata Escué on September 22, 1994 (record of Appendixes to the application, Volume I, Exhibit 17, page 109); statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata Escué in the public hearing held before the Inter-American Commission on October 17, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the application, Volume I, Exhibit 3, page 36) and affidavit rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, pages 605 and 606).