9 “On the Alleged Inadmissibility of the new Arguments and Allegations contained in the Autonomous Brief signed by the Alleged Victims”. 28. The State alleged that the representatives intend to include in the case file new facts and arguments by means of their autonomous brief, seeking in this way an assessment by the Court and, in consequence, the State’s conviction for the alleged human rights violations on the ground of such arguments and facts and, furthermore, “the representatives intend the Court […] convict the State for the alleged violation of Articles 21 and 24 of the American Convention, […] even though the Commission's application does not contain any request” in that regard. The State asserted that the possibility of prosecution is subjected to the facts of the application only and to the rights that have been denounced as breached in the Commission’s application; therefore, it requested the Court to “exclude and omit the new arguments and allegations contained in the autonomous brief submitted by the representatives from the judgment on the merits". 29. The representatives alleged that the Inter-American Court has taken up the procedural principle of full jurisdiction as to the consideration and application of law, regardless one of the parties invokes it or not, apart from the principle iura novit curia. They pointed out that in the brief of pleadings and motions they referred to the same facts presented by the Commission and, moreover, to supervening facts and a series of events that, even though they are not contained in the application, they are “directly linked” to those facts (supra para. 4 and infra para. 60 and 61), therefore the Court should not be impeded from hearing those. As a consequence, they stated that they have legal standing to allege other rights not included in the application and therefore, requested the Court to declare groundless this preliminary objection. 30. The Commission, on the other hand, made no specific declarations regarding this objection but it limited to expressed “its opinion”. The Commission stated that, once the proceeding is initiated, the Rules of Procedure establishes the way an alleged victim and his or her representatives may actively and autonomously intervene throughout the proceeding, which does not violate the State's right to defense. 31. Based on the allegations made by the State and without prejudice to the arguments related to what constitutes the factual framework of the instant case (infra para. 64 to 75) with respect to this preliminary objection, it is the Tribunal's responsibility to only rule about the possibility of the alleged victims and their representatives to allege the violation of other rights other than those that have been mentioned in the application. 32. 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 has established 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. Furthermore, supervening facts may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceeding before the judgment is issued.20 Furthermore, the alleged victims and their representatives may argue violations of the Convention other than those included in the application, in a manner consistent with their condition as those truly entitled to the rights set forth in the Convention, as long as such legal arguments are based upon the facts set out in the application,21 since such application 20 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2009. Series C No. 98, para. 154; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 174; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 228.