14 well as in the written brief containing pleadings and motions of the representatives, based on the iura novit curia principle, firmly supported by international jurisprudence, “in the sense that the judge has the authority and even the duty to apply the legal provisions that are pertinent to a case, even if they are not explicitly invoked by the parties,” in the understanding that the parties will always be allowed to submit the pleadings and evidence that they deem pertinent to support their position regarding all the legal provisions examined.4 58. In the current stage of evolution of the inter-American system for protection of human rights, the capacity of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives to autonomously submit requests, pleadings and evidence can only be interpreted in a manner consistent with their condition as those truly entitled to the rights set forth in the Convention, and as the beneficiaries of the protection offered by the system, without disregarding the limits established in the Convention regarding their participation or the exercise of the competence of the Court. Once the proceeding has been commenced by the Commission, the possibility of autonomously submitting requests and pleadings before the Court includes that of alleging the violation of other provisions of the Convention not included in the application, based on the facts presented in the latter, without this affecting the object of the application or diminishing or violating the State’s right to defense, as the State has procedural opportunities to respond to the pleadings of the Commission and of the representatives at all stages of the proceeding. It is ultimately for the Court to decide in each case whether such claims are in order, safeguarding procedural balance among the parties. 59. This Court has the authority to establish on its own the facts of the case and to decide on legal aspects not alleged by the parties, based on the iura novit curia principle. In other words, while the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceeding, it does not limit the authority of the Court to establish the facts of the case, based on the evidence submitted, on the supervening facts, on complementary and contextual evidence in the file, as well as on publicly known or notorious facts, which the Court deems it pertinent to include among said facts. 60. Thus, the Court will also analyze the alleged violation of Articles 19 and 22 of the Convention, raised by the representatives in the instant case (infra paras. 151 to 163 and 168 to 189). * * * 61. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the instant case, the Court must decide on the scope of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State (supra paras. 34 and 37). 62. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case and to those of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case will decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 4 See Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of July 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 91; Case of De la Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 124 to 126.