13 [The above] in no way restricts the individuals’ entitlement to the rights. The InterAmerican system allows all the legal arguments of the petitioners, and especially those regarding the allegedly breached rights under the Convention, to be submitted during the proceeding before the Commission. However, while the application does not have to be identical to the Commission’s Report, as the Court itself has stated, it cannot contain references to alleged violations of rights (Concepts of violation) that the State has not been informed of during the proceeding before the Commission, as this would violate the right to object to them at the appropriate time, the above without detriment to application by the Honorable Court of the jura novit curia principle. […] In our opinion, and with the aim of maintaining procedural balance, legal certainty, and ensuring the right to defense, granting the representatives of the victims the capacity to submit their briefs and furthermore a new application or new facts or rights before the Court as a true substantive party would entail a modification of the role of the Commission as a party in the proceeding before the Court, for it to act as a true Prosecutor (or prosecuting authority), oversight body of the Convention and Auxiliary to the Court, as had been foreseen in Resolution 1701 [of the General Assembly of the OAS in the year 2000], while maintaining the key aspects of the System and the distribution of competence between the two bodies. 55. The State also emphasized that its acknowledgment of responsibility was limited to a chapter of the facts submitted by the Commission in the application and to the violation of three articles, set forth in that application, “as it constitutes the factual and legal basis for the proceeding, and this in no way entails acceptance of the new facts and claims included […] in the brief by the […] representatives”. 56. The written brief containing pleadings and motions of the representatives, entitled “Application by the representatives of the next of kin of the victims before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in case 12,250 ‘Mapiripán Massacre’ against the Republic of Colombia”, does not have said nature of an application and it is thus deemed by this Court. In this case, it was the Inter-American Commission, and not the representatives, who had the capacity to commence a proceeding before the Court by filing an application strictu sensu. The purpose of said written brief containing pleadings and motions is to make the locus standi in judicio procedural capacity effective, as recognized for the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives. 57. With regard to the possibility of participation by the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives in the proceedings before the Court, and of alleging other facts or the violation of other rights not included in the application, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence, in which it has established that: […] With regard to the facts that are the object of the proceeding, this Court deems, as it has previously, that it is not admissible to allege new facts other than those stated in the application, without detriment to stating those that help explain, clarify or dismiss those mentioned in the application, or respond to the applicant’s claims. Supervening facts may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceeding before the judgment is issued. […] Likewise, with regard to inclusion of rights other than those already included in the Commission’s application, this Court has established that the petitioners can invoke said rights. It is they who are entitled to all the rights embodied in the American Convention, and to not admit this would be an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of International Human Rights Law. The above, regarding other rights, is with regard to facts already included in the application. […] This Court also has the authority to analyze the possible violation of articles of the Convention not included in the application brief and in the reply to the application, as