relation to the rights to recognition of juridical personality and to a name. 347 However, this does not prevent the Court from analyzing whether this non-compliance with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions in relation to the said rights existed. It is relevant to examine this in the case sub-judice because the Court has declared the violation of those rights as a result of the State authorities disregarding personal documents or the impossibility of obtaining them in the case of some of the presumed victims (supra paras. 276 and 301). The Court will also make this analysis with regard to the right to equality before the law, the violation of which was alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 236 and 244). 305. On this point, the Court reiterates that the iura novit curia principle, which is strongly supported by international jurisprudence, allows it to examine the possible violation of provisions of the Convention that have not been alleged in the briefs presented by the parties, provided that the latter have been able to state their respective positions in relation to the facts that support them. 348 In this regard, the Court has used this principle on several occasions since its first judgment, 349 in order to declare the violation of rights that had not been directly alleged by the parties, but that were revealed by the analysis of the facts in dispute, because this principle authorizes the Court to classify the legal situation or statement in conflict differently from that the way in which the parties classified it, provided that it respects the factual framework of the case. 350 306. Accordingly, the Court, in application of the iura novit curia principle and based on the facts of the case, notes that the possible failure to comply with Article 2, owing to the indicated norms and decisions (supra para. 302), could also have implications on the said 347 Despite this, it should be noted that, during the public hearing, in answer to questions posed by Judges Ventura Robles and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot on Article 2 of the Convention, the representatives stated that the alleged violation “is related to the violation of the right to nationality and the rights to juridical personality, of the family, and to privacy and family life, because [they] considered that the violation arose from the undue application of article 11 of the Dominican Constitution, and as [they had] explained, the State had sought to equate the term ‘in transit’ with migratory irregularity; hence, [their] allegation concerning Article 2.” Subsequently, in their final written arguments they included a section entitled “violation of the right to juridical personality, to a name, to nationality and to equal protection of the law […] together with non-compliance with the obligations contained in Articles 1(1), 2 and 19 of this instrument,” and mentioned that they had “explained why Article 2 had been violated” in answer to the question of the said judges during the public hearing. However, in the conclusion of the section they made no mention of Article 2, and did not refer to it in their final arguments. In this regard, the Court notes the lack of consistency and clarity in the arguments of the representatives with regard to the said alleged violation. Consequently, it is not possible to examine those arguments. As will be explained (infra para. 306), the Court examined the connection of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the convention to rights other than the right to nationality based on the iura novit curia principle. 348 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 163, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 55. 349 For example, in the following cases, inter alia, the Court declared the violation of rights that were not cited by the parties in application of the iura novit curia principle: (i) in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras it declared the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention; (ii) in the case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela it declared the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention; (iii) in the case of Bayarri v. Argentina it declared the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; (iv) in the case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama it declared the violation of Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in relation to Article II of that instrument; (v) in the case of Kimel v. Argentina it declared the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention; (vi) in the case of Bueno Alves it declared the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Bueno Alves; (vii) in the case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia it declared the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention; (viii) in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay it declared the violation of Article 3 of the American Convention; (ix) in the case of Vélez Loor v. Panama it declared the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention, and (x) in the case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina it declared the violation of Article 5 of this instrument. 350 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 70, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 55. 99