61 ARTICLES 11 AND 17 Pleadings of the Commission 174. The Commission did not claim a violation of Article 11 nor of Article 17 of the American Convention in the instant case. Instead, it deemed that the pleadings of the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin “transcend the object of the instant proceeding,” because: a) the object of the instant case is set forth in the application filed by the Commission; b) the above without detriment to the fact that the Court ultimately establishes the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz) and that, in view of the iura novit curia principle, the Court has the authority to apply the legal provisions that are pertinent in a case, even when the parties do not explicitly invoke them; c) pursuant to Articles 61(1) and 51(1) of the American Convention, only the States and the Inter-American Commission may initiate a proceeding before the Court, and in doing so they establish its juridical content, that is, what facts need to be proven by the parties and analyzed by the Court, just as the Court must establish what rights have been abridged; d) the Commission´s report, issued pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, or its applications, are the limits of the claims in the cases brought before the Court; e) bearing in mind the aforementioned provisions of the Convention, as well as reasons pertaining to the right to defense and to due process, procedural balance and legal certainty, the proceeding before the Court must take place within the limits set forth in the report issued by the Commission pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention and in the application filed before the Court; f) the written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence refers to certain new facts for which new evidence is provided, regarding facts subsequent to the death of the alleged victims, which allegedly affected their family and, regarding to said facts, there would allegedly be an abridgment of Articles 17 and 11 of the American Convention; and g) said factual and legal aspects transcend the object of the instant proceeding. Pleadings of the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin 175. The representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin deemed that Peru violated Article 11(2) of the American Convention, because the State attempted to convince the public that the minors died in a “terrorist confrontation” against the police and presented them as criminals; it stigmatized the name of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, which was an illegal attack against their honor and reputation; it also interfered unlawfully with the home and private life of the Gómez Paquiyauri family, through members of the police and of the Dirección Contra el Terrorismo (DINCOTE) immediately after the facts and throughout the duration of the domestic