constitutes the factual framework for the proceedings before the Court, so that it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those described in that brief; although it is admissible to submit facts that help explain, clarify, or deny facts that have been mentioned in the application or that respond to the plaintiff’s claims.271 Supervening facts are the exception to this principle and they can be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the judgment is delivered.272 Moreover, the opportunity for the alleged victims or their representatives to exercise fully that right of locus standi in judicio is the pleadings and motions brief.273 Lastly, the alleged victims must be indicated in the application, and should correspond to the InterAmerican Commission’s report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention.274 238. In the instant case, the representatives asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 5(1) in their pleadings and motions brief; in other words, they presented their request at the appropriate procedural moment. 239. Regarding the observance of the factual framework presented in the application, the Court observes that, although the Commission did not expressly allege a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, it indicated in its application that “the lack of an effective guarantee of the Community’s right to property has placed its members in a situation of extreme vulnerability and defenselessness that has resulted in the violation of the right to life and personal integrity of the members of the Community.” The Commission also indicated that the members of the Community had been subjected to “suffering, anguish and indignities […] during the years they have waited for an effective response from the State of Paraguay to their land claim.” Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the arguments of the representatives are related to the factual framework described by the Commission in its application. 240. Lastly, regarding the identification of the alleged victims of the violations alleged by the representatives, the Court observes that the next of kin of the deceased were not identified as victims by the Commission in its Report on Merits or in its application. Hence, the Court will not examine the alleged violations to the detriment of the next of kin of the deceased. Consequently, the Court must determine whether or not the members of the Community are victims of the violation of their right to personal integrity. 241. Having verified compliance with the formal requirements, the Court will now examine the merits of the matter. 242. Regarding the alleged violation of “cultural integrity,” in paragraphs 174 to 182 supra, the Court examined the consequences of the failure to restore the traditional territory of the members of the Community. In addition, in the chapter on Article 4 of the Convention, the Court examined the living conditions of the members of the 271 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 262, para. 153; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 42, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 49.. 272 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 262, para. 154; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 262, para. 67, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 49. 273 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 56; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 136, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 14, para. 232. 274 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 12, para. 108, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 44. 56