62 123. The Court is mindful that the new provisions of amended Article 38 were not in effect at the time the application was filed; however, they were the usage constant of the Court. Therefore, the Court considers that the amended Article 38 can be useful in shedding light on the question posed, since it makes plain the fact that the respondent State has the procedural opportunity, either in its brief answering the application or in another separate brief, to exercise its right to defend itself against the brief of pleadings and motions filed by the representatives, and that right must of necessity include the possibility of filing whatever preliminary objections it deems necessary. * * * 124. This Court will now examine the question of whether other facts or rights not included in the application can be alleged or claimed, respectively. With regard to the facts under examination in this proceeding, this Court considers, as it has on other occasions, that new facts other than those set forth in the application are inadmissible whereas facts that explain, clarify or rebut those alleged in the application or that answer the plaintiff’s claims are admissible.55 Facts that qualify as supervening facts can also be brought to the Court’s attention at any stage in the process, before the judgment is delivered.56 125. Regarding to the inclusion of rights other than those already encompassed by the Commission’s application, this Court has held that the claimants can invoke said rights.57 It is they who are entitled to all the rights protected under the American Convention, and not to admit the inclusion of other rights would be to unduly restrict their status as subjects of the International Law of Human Rights. It is understood that any other rights invoked must be regarding to facts already contained in the application.58 126. The Court is empowered to examine possible violations of Articles of the Convention that were not included in the brief of application, the brief answering the application, and the representatives’ brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. The basis of this authority of the Court is iura novit curia, a long-established principle of international jurisprudence whereby “the judge has the power and even the obligation to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when the parties do not invoke them expressly.”59 It is understood that the parties will always be given an opportunity to present whatever arguments and evidence they deem relevant to support their position vis-à-vis all the legal provisions under examination. 55 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 178; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153. 56 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 178; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 40, para. 128; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 57. 57 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 179; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 142; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 134. 58 59 Supra note 57. Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 179; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 55, para. 156; and Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 9, para. 58.