11 50. On June 27, 2005 the Court issued an Order in which it ratified the President’s February 4, 2005 Order.3 On August 24, 2005 the State submitted its second report. Said provisional measures are in force at the time the instant Judgment is issued. VI PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 51. In addition to the Articles of the Convention that the Commission argued in its application had been breached, the representatives have alleged that the State breached Articles 19 and 22 of said treaty. 52. The State also made a number of comments throughout the proceeding before the Court regarding participation of the next of kin of the alleged victims: in its reply to the application, Colombia asked the Court to reject the written brief containing pleadings and motions of the representatives and to return it for the brief to be adjusted to the terms set forth in Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, deeming that it constituted a true application, which in its opinion went beyond its procedural capacities under the Convention. 53. In its oral pleadings, the State made the following considerations: The American Convention constitutes the basis and juridical framework for the Rules of Procedures of the Court and of the Commission and Article 61 sets forth that only the States party and the Commission have the right to bring a case before the Court for it to decide. The Rules of Procedure of the Court, in Article 23, have reflected […] the will expressed by the States, to provide greater participation of the victims in the proceeding before the Court and have established that, once the application has been accepted, the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives can submit their requests, pleadings and evidence in an autonomous manner. In the case of the inter-American system, all the juridical pleadings of the petitioners, especially regarding the rights embodied in the Convention that were allegedly breached, must be submitted during the proceeding before the Commission. Thus, it is during said stage that the State can also submit its arguments about them, and the Commission can issue a ruling on each and every accusation. This ensures legal certainty, procedural equality and the right to defense, as the State must know the charges against it and these are expressed in the claims, precisely, in the applications. Likewise, the proceeding before the Inter-American Court should […] remain within the limits contained in the Commission’s substantive report and of the application filed by the latter before the Court, because it is precisely Article 61 of the Convention that leads to the principle that when a case is brought before the Court, the Commission or the States establish the object and limits of the proceeding; that is, the facts that must be proven by the parties and analyzed by the Court, as well as the rights whose violation is to be elucidated. Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court reflects this, and establishes that the claims and legal grounds, among other matters, will be stated in the application. […] The Rules of Procedure of the Court […] granted the petitioners autonomous representation for a specific purpose: to submit requests, pleadings, and evidence. […] This in no way means that the provisions of the Convention have been modified. Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure […] cannot be interpreted as granting the petitioners the capacity to submit claims other than those included in the application. For the State, it is clear that the requests, pleadings, and evidence mentioned by this article are restricted […] to what was stated in the Commission’s application, unless they are 3 See Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Provisional Measures. June 27, 2005 Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.