25 the detainee in several defense acts, such as providing or retaining legal assistance, procuring means of evidence in the country of origin, controlling the conditions in which legal services are provided and controlling the detention conditions of the accused while in prison. In this regard, the Court has further pointed out that the individual right to request consular assistance from the country of origin must be acknowledged and considered as one of the minimum guarantees necessary to provide foreigners an opportunity to prepare their defense adequately and to have a fair trial.71 117. In view of the foregoing, and taking into consideration the acknowledgement made by the State, the Court concludes that Argentina has violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. BuenoAlves. XI ARTICLE 11 (RIGHT TO PRIVACY)72 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 118. The representative alleged that in the instant case the State showed indifference and lack of interest regarding the honor, dignity, and life of the victim and his next of kin. She further stated that Mr. Bueno-Alves was insulted and defamed when charged with “the commission of a malicious crime and a criminal conduct.” This circumstance discredited him within his social environment, tarnished his professional reputation, and deeply affected his family.” 119. The Commission has not alleged the violation of this Article. 120. The State objected to the allegations made by the representative by pointing out that they are time-barred, given the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves had not made any reference to such violation in the claim he had filed before the Commission. Consequently, they constitute new and time-barred violations, regarding which the exhaustion of proceedings as set forth in Articles 48 and 50 of the Convention is not applicable. 121. The Court has determined that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights other than those asserted in the petition filed before the Commission, on the basis of the facts described therein.73 As regards the latter point, the Court has pointed out that it is not admissible to allege new facts other than those described in the application, except where they provide an explanation, clarification or grounds for dismissal of those facts included in such application, or else where they are intended to 71 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 125; Case of Tibi, supra note 43, paras. 112 and 195; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 130, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 86, 106, and 122. 72 Article 11 of the Convention sets forth that: 1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 73 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 280; Case of López-Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 145 and Case of Gómez-Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 59.