111 Pleadings of the Commission 220. The Commission did not refer in its application to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. However, in its November 1, 2001 brief in which it submitted its observations on the autonomous brief filed by the representatives, it pointed out that “taking into account that said argument does not expand the object of the controversy of the Mack case when it was before the [Commission],” there is no impediment under the Convention for the Court to analyze the possible violation of said Article, based on the iura novit curia principle. Furthermore, the application against it is filed before the Court, the State knows the central object of the controversy, in other words, that the factual and legal basis that enables an effective exercise of the right of defense of the State is that the application filed by the Commission and the brief by the representatives of the next of kin of the victim substantially contain the same legal and factual controversies that were the object of the proceeding before the Commission. Finally, that the limits set forth in the Convention to the Court’s sphere of decision-making have not been altered by the brief of the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, who merely reaffirm the facts stated in the application and give them a different juridical definition, for which reason this does not affect the right of defense of the State nor the powers granted to the Commission by the Convention. Pleadings of the State 221. In accordance with what the Court set forth in paragraphs 94 and 111, the State acquiesced unconditionally to the facts described by the Commission in its application and to the request of the representatives of the next of kin of the victim that the Court find that there was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 222. Article 5(1) of the Convention states that: [e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. [...] 223. In their brief with requests, pleadings, and evidence, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim asked that the Court find that there was a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang. It should be underlined that the Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of said Article. In addition, as stated above, in its March 3, 2003 brief, the State acquiesced with respect to abridgment of Article 5 of the Convention. 224. The Court has already established that it is possible for the victims, their next of kin or their representatives to allege violation of other Articles of the Convention than those already included in the object of the demand filed by the Commission, based on the facts contained in said application, for which it refers to the “Five Pensioners” case, in which it stated that: [w]ith respect to inclusion of rights other than those already encompassed by the application filed by the Commission, the Court deems that the applicants can invoke said rights. It is they who are entitled to all the rights embodied in the American convention, and not admitting this would be an undue restriction of their status as