are afraid. They state that the threats were not reported to the authorities for the same reason. […] (Bold type added by the Court) 30. As is clear from the Admissibility Report, the State was undoubtedly aware of the facts that support the alleged violation of Articles 22 and 23 of the Convention, to the detriment of members of family A, B.A. and A.A., in the early stages of the proceeding before the Commission, and could therefore have expressed its position, had it considered it pertinent. Thus, the Court considers that the Commission’s decision to include in its Merits Report the presumed violations of the right to freedom of movement and residence, and to participation in government, recognized in Articles 22 and 23 of the American Convention, is based on the principle of “iura novit curia” and, bearing in mind that the State “knew about the facts upon which the allegation was based, and had the opportunity to submit its observations in that regard,” 25 this did not imply a violation of Guatemala’s right to defense. 31. For the above reasons, the Court dismisses the State’s objection regarding a supposed violation of its right to defense in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 32. In this Chapter, the Court will rule on the arguments put forward by the State concerning: a) the alleged “[l]ack of legal standing of the representatives of the presumed [v]ictims in this case”, and b) the alleged “incongruities, contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts that constitute the factual framework established by the Commission […] with respect to the facts alleged in the brief of pleadings [and motions].” The Court will also refer to: c) the determination of alleged victims in this case. A) Alleged lack of legal standing of the representatives A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 33. The State held that Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda and B.A. had acted before the Commission and Court as petitioners, and not as representatives of the alleged victims. It argued that, in order to act as representatives, this status must be accredited. It also argued that there was no evidence in the case file showing that the alleged victims had given their consent to bring the case before the Court. Similarly, the State alleged that there were no legal statements or briefs referring to any type of representation granted by the family to Claudia Samayoa and B.A. Therefore, it held that both the Commission and the Court were in breach of regulatory provisions: the Commission, because prior to submitting the case it should have asked the petitioners to certify their status as representatives of the alleged victims, and the Court, for having examined and processed the case without the petitioners having properly certified that status. According to the State, the omission of this procedural requirement regarding proper legal accreditation would render inadmissible the application submitted and would impede the exercise of the claims attempted through the brief of pleadings and motions. 34. The Commission considered that it is not up to the State to confirm whether or not the representatives have been duly accredited; rather, this determination is made by the Court’s President under Article 38 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as part of the “preliminary examination of the application.” 35. The representatives explained that on September 19, 2013, the Court’s Secretariat asked them to confirm whether they would indeed represent all the alleged victims, and on September 26, 2013, they replied affirmatively. They added that in a brief dated May 14, 2012, the sons and daughters of A.A., D.A., E.A., B.A., F.A., G.A. and H.A., had agreed that the Commission should submit the case to the Court, and had also expressed their agreement with the petitioners’ statements before the Commission and the legal representation exercised by B.A. and Claudia Virginia Samayoa. The representatives further pointed out that in said brief the alleged victims had “delegated their representation” to B.A. and Claudia Samayoa, and that said document therefore complies with the requirements considered essential to confirm their representation. Thus, they argued that their representation “was sufficiently accredited” through documents submitted in the proceedings before this Court and before the Commission. 25 Cf. Merits Report No. 56/12 of March 21, 2012 (Merits file, pages 57 and 63). 12