exclusively establish the requirements whereby a petition may be declared admissible or inadmissible, but do not impose on the Commission the obligation to determine which rights will subject to the proceedings. Indeed, Article 48 of the Convention allows the Commission, after the petition has been admitted, if necessary, “to carry out an investigation, for the effective conduct of which [it shall] request, and the States concerned shall provide, all necessary facilities.”45 In this regard, the Court considers that the rights specified in the Report on Admissibility are the result of a preliminary assessment of the petition in progress, hence the possibility of including other rights or articles allegedly violated at subsequent stages of the proceedings is not limited, provided that the State’s right to defend itself is protected in the factual background of the case under consideration. 53. Furthermore, the possibility of changing or altering the legal description of the facts of a specific case is permitted in the context of a process before the Inter-American System. This is evident in the Court’s consistent case law, which allows alleged victims and their representatives to invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the petition or in the report on merits, provided that these are related to the facts contained in said document, given that the alleged victims are entitled to all the rights enshrined in the Convention.46 54. Similarly, the Court reiterates the points made in the case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, in which the State at one time argued, as a preliminary objection, that its right to defend itself was infringed given that the Commission “determined other violations different from those for which the case was admitted.” In that case the Court indicated that the Commission’s conclusions regarding alleged violations of the American Convention are not binding upon the Court. 47 Similarly, in the case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela the Court indicated that “the decisions on inadmissibility that the Commission takes based on Article 47 b) and c) of the Convention are prima facie juridical assessments that do not limit the Court’s competence to rule on a point of law that the Commission has only analyzed in a preliminary manner.” 48 55. Secondly, the Court reiterates that the principle of iura novit curia, which is solidly supported by international case law, allows the Court to examine a possible violation of the provisions of the Convention that have not been alleged in the briefs submitted by the parties, provided they are given the opportunity to express their respective positions in 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 44 The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: a) any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met; b) the petition or communication does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention; c) the statements of the petitioner or of the State indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order; and d) the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 45 Article 48(d) of the American Convention and Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission. 46 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 242. 47 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 63. 48 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, para. 189. 17