53 189. Lastly, Brazil indicated that the victims were using available judicial remedies to defend their rights in the civil sphere. These remedies were filed almost four years after the facts occurred, following the submission of the petition to the Commission. With the passage of time, obtaining documents and testimonies becomes more problematic and takes more time. The late filing of an action cannot be attributed to the State, which had already ruled in first instance on some of the actions, and several of the decisions were pending appeal. * * * 190. In its application, the Commission did not claim the alleged violation of the guarantee of impartiality by Judge Khater or the violation of the guarantees of impartiality and independence of the Court of Justice that examined the conduct of the said judge. These allegations were made only by the representatives. 191. In this regard, this Court has established that the presumed victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights that differ from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented by the latter.169 192. When referring to the content of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, the Commission mentioned the need for an independent and impartial judge and court. However, the Court observes that the claims related to the supposed partiality of Judge Khater in this specific case (supra para. 185(a) and (c)), are based on facts that cannot be inferred from the application and were not examined in the Inter-American Commission’s Report on Merits No. 14/07. Therefore, the Court will not consider them. Regarding the allegation on the authorization of the telephone intervention order within the framework of the monitoring petition (supra para. 185(b)), the Court has already examined the pertinent elements in the chapter of this judgment on Article 11 of the Convention. 193. Furthermore, regarding the actions of the court of justice that intervened in the criminal investigation, the representatives indicated that this body did not act pursuant to the guarantees of impartiality and independence when prosecuting Judge Khater, without submitting grounds or probative elements to explain which acts that occurred when processing this procedure would constitute a violation of these guarantees. Also, the Court found it proved that an administrative proceeding had taken place to process the conduct of Judge Khater before the administrative department of the court of justice within the framework of the monitoring petition (supra 110). Hence, the file contains no evidence of the facts that, according to the representatives, allegedly violated the guarantees of impartiality and independence. Consequently, the Court rejects the said arguments. * * * 194. Regarding the acts and omissions of domestic judicial bodies, the Court has indicated that Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention establish the scope of the principle of generation of responsibility based on the acts of any State organ.170 In addition, it has 169 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 32, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 127. 170 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, paras. 164, 169 and 170; Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 140, and Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 78.