26 ratified at a hearing held on November 8, 2007. 104 In a decision adopted on December 13, 2007, Section Three of the Council of the State approved the conciliation between the Nation and 19 of the 23 optional joint parties and declared the process concluded with respect to them; it also disapproved the agreement with respect to the other four parties and ordered the process to continue. 105 On November 19, 2008, Section Three of the Council of State declared the NationMinistry of Defense-FAC) financially liable for the damages caused to the four joint parties in respect of whom the proceeding for the events of December 13, 1998, continued. 106 100. By resolution 0979 of March 18, 2009, and resolution 1560 of April 27, 2009, the Nation-Ministry of Defense paid the representative of the alleged victims a total of five thousand fifty-eight million seven hundred fifty-nine thousand nineteen pesos and twenty cents ($5,758,759,019.20) in reparation and compensation for the events at Santo Domingo 107 to 23 family groups, composed 111 persons, among which there are families of 16 of the persons who were killed, as well as 13 of the persons that were murdered and their families. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 101. It should be pointed out that the submissions of the petitioners in the merits stage refer to article 22 of the American Convention which was not considered in the Admissibility Report 25/03. In the instant case, the state has been privy to the relevant facts since the beginning of the proceeding, and to the submissions with respect to the provisions in reference since the beginning of the merits stage. Therefore, the State has had ample opportunity to contest them. In that regard, it is worth noting that the provisions that set out the requirements to be met by a petition in order to be admitted by the Commission (Article 46(1) of the American Convention, Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure in force at the time the complaint was lodged, and Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure currently in force) do not require specification of the articles considered to be violated in relation to the facts reported. 108 Therefore, the Commission will consider the arguments and admissions made with respect to Article 22 of the American Convention inasmuch as they are connected with the facts with which this case is concerned. 109 102. In view of these elements and in keeping with the principle of iura novit curia, which allows international organizations to apply all pertinent legal provisions, 110 the Commission will consider the arguments as to fact and law of the parties as a whole in order to determine the extent 104 Annex 23. Section Three, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., Case No. 28259 (00-00348-01). Record of November 8, 2007. Appendix to the communication presented by a third party, received by the IACHR on February 6, 2009, received on March 9, 2009, and transmitted to both parties on April 21, 2010. 105 Annex 23. Section Three, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., Case No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-034801, December 13, 2007. Appendix to the communication presented by a third party, received by the IACHR on February 6, 2009, received on March 9, 2009, and transmitted to both parties on April 21, 2010. 106 Annex 24. Section Three, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., Case No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-034801, November 19, 2008. Available at: http://www.lealecheverryabogados.com/docs/SENTENCIA1.pdf. 107 Annex 25. Ministry of National Defense, resolution 0979 of 2009, March 18, 2009, and Annex 26. resolution 1560 of 2009, April 27, 2009. Appendix 1 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 108 As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established, as long as the petitioners set out in their original petition the facts on which they base their claims of violations of the Convention, and these are relevant to making a legal determination, they are under no legal obligation to specify precise provisions in the initial petition, nor are there impediments to the submission of additional legal arguments in subsequent pleadings based on the same facts. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C, No. 80, par. 42. 109 IACHR, Report 62/08 Manuel Cepeda Vargas, July 25, 2008, par. 72. 110 Permanent Court of International Justice, Lotus Case, Judgment of 7 September 1927, Series A No. 10, p. 31.