71 . Convention of Belem do Pará, in relation to its general obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights of the female journalists identified. These positions were reiterated and complemented by the representatives in their final written arguments. 275. The representatives indicated that the female journalists attacked were Luisiana Ríos, Isabel Mavarez, Erika Paz, Anahís Cruz, and Laura Castellanos, who represent 25% of the people assaulted. They argued that the attacks by individuals and State agents against the alleged female victims are “a characteristic and aggravating circumstance [of] the facts described in the application,” since the attacks were also committed tacking into consideration their gender, thus being determined as an attack especially directed against women, that was both reiterated and tolerated by the State. 276. As previously stated (supra para. 42), in the terms of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the Court, during a case before this Tribunal the correct procedural moment for the alleged victims, their next of kin, or representatives to be able to fully exercise their right to appear and act in the proceedings, with the corresponding procedural legal standing, is the brief of pleadings and motions. Even though the representatives have the possibility to present their own pleadings and arguments in the proceedings before this Tribunal, in attention to the adversarial principle and the principles of defense and procedural loyalty, said ability does not free them of presenting them on the first procedural opportunity granted to them for these effects, that is in their brief of pleadings and motions.289 Despite the fact that the representatives did not argue the violation of the mentioned Convention of Belem do Pará at the correct procedural moment; the Court will issue a ruling with regard to this argument. 277. In the case of the Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, the Court made reference to part of the scope of Article 5 of the American Convention with regard to the specific aspects of violence against women, considering as a reference of interpretation the relevant stipulations of the Convention of Belem do Pará and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, since these instruments complement the international corpus juris when protecting the personal integrity of women, of which the American Convention is part.290 In that case, the Court mentioned that besides the protection granted in Article 5 of the Convention, Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Pará expressly indicates that the States shall ensure that the authorities and state agents refrain from engaging in any act or practice of violence against women. 291 278. The Court observes that the representatives have based their position mainly on a quantitative criterion arguing that the acts of aggression occurred “based on the gender” of the alleged victims. In this sense, the Court points out that in their final written arguments the representatives highlighted facts of August 13, 2002, which affected Mrs. Laura Castellanos; facts of December 17, 2001, January 20th and April 18, 2002, which affected Mrs. Luisiana Ríos, and the fact of April 9, 2002, which involved Mrs. Isabel Mavarez. Thus, the representatives argued that the Court must take into account that they were affected by the acts of violence differently and in a greater proportion than the alleged male victims. 279. This Tribunal considers that it is necessary to clarify that not all violations of human rights committed in detriment of a woman necessarily implies a violation of the stipulations of the Convention of Belem do Pará. Even though female journalists were attacked in the facts of this case, in all of the cases they were attacked along with their male colleagues. The representatives did not prove how the attacks were “especially direct[ed] against 289 Cf. case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 80, para. 225. 290 Cf. case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 276. 291 Cf. case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 44, para.