clearly and specifically argued that family members Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza had experienced violation of their right to personal integrity, right to judicial guarantees and right to judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention).51 Later, on February 8, 2011, they provided the names of all the family members—Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Florentino Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros and Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe. 52 These briefs were promptly transferred to the State for comment. Finally, in the Report on the Merits approved March 31, 2011, the Commission took the initiative of adding Lucinda Rojas Landa as a family member (infra paras. 92 and 97). 67. It is therefore beyond question that the State had been aware of the facts alleged to have occurred in violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in injury of the family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza ever since the beginning of the process before the Commission, and could have expressed its position if it so chose. The case file also shows that for a period of over seven years during the merits stage, the State had at least six procedural opportunities to challenge the facts being raised by the petitioners; 53 on at least four of these occasions, it was in a position to respond specifically to the arguments that the petitioners had submitted concerning the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, 54 and subsequently, concerning the full identification of family members as alleged victims. 55 Clearly, it had procedural opportunities to avail itself of its right to defense during the process before the Commission. The Court therefore finds that Peru’s right to defense was not violated by the Commission’s decision in its Report No. 66/11 to cite violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in injury of the family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, in application of the principle of iura novit curia and taking into account that “the facts substantiating these allegations are contained in the information and documentation provided by the parties during the processing of the instant case, with respect to which the State has had the opportunity to defend itself and submit its pleadings.”56 Cf. Petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 23, 2008 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1887 to 1932). 51 Cf. Petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 8, 2011 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2723 to 2725). 52 Cf. Communication from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, June 17, 2004 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1580 to 1581). The State submitted no arguments at that time; audio recording of the public hearing on February 28, 2005, during the 122nd regular session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (evidence file, volume II, annex 46 of the case submission brief, folio 1326); Report 129-2008-JUS/CNDH-SE/CESAPI, July 24, 2008 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2386 to 2393); Report 08-2009-JUS/PPES, February 6, 2009 (evidence file, volume II, annex 47 of the case submission brief, folios 1328 to 1343); Report 38-2010-JUS/PPES, February 17, 2010 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2697 to 2699), and Report 116-2011-JUS/PPES, March 9, 2011 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2709 to 2711). 53 Cf. Report 129-2008-JUS/CNDH-SE/CESAPI, July 24, 2008 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2386 to 2393); Report 08-2009-JUS/PPES, February 6, 2009 (evidence file, volume II, annex 47 of the case submission brief, folios 1328 to 1343); Report 38-2010-JUS/PPES, February 17, 2010 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2697 to 2699), and Report 116-2011-JUS/PPES, March 9, 2011 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2709 to 2711). 54 Cf. Report 116-2011-JUS/PPES, March 9, 2011 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2709 to 2711). 55 Report on the Merits No. 66/11 issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 31, 2011, para. 220. 56