-1027. With regard to acknowledgment of international responsibility in cases heard before by the Court, it has established that2: […] Article 5[3] of the Rules of Procedure refers to a situation in which a respondent State informs the Court of its acquiescence regarding the facts and the claims of the applicant party and, therefore, accepts its international responsibility for breaching the convention, in the terms set forth in the application, a situation that would give rise to early termination of the proceeding regarding the merits of the matter, as set forth in chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, the application brief includes the considerations regarding the facts and the points of law as well as the claims regarding the merits of the matter and the requests for the respective reparations and costs. In this regard, when a State acquiesces to the application, it must clearly state whether it does so only regarding the merits of the matter, or whether it also includes reparations and costs. If the acquiescence refers only to the merits of the matter, the Court will consider whether it will continue with the procedural stage of determining reparations and costs. […] In light of the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights, where the alleged victims or their next of kin can today autonomously submit their brief with requests, pleadings, and evidence, and wield claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission, when there is an acquiescence it must clearly state whether the claims made by the alleged victims or their next of kin are also accepted. […] On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure of the Court do not establish any specific moment for the respondent party to state its acquiescence. Therefore, if a State resorts to this procedural act at any stage of the proceeding, this Court, after hearing all the parties, must evaluate and decide its scope in each specific case. 28. Likewise, with regard to the possibility of alleging other facts or rights not included in the application, the Court has established that3: […] With regard to the facts addressed in the proceeding, this Court deems, as it has previously, that it is not admissible to allege new facts that are different from those stated in the application, while it is possible to state those that may explain, clarify or dismiss those that have been mentioned in the application, or to respond to the claims of the applicant. Furthermore, facts that are deemed supervening may be submitted to the Court at any state of the proceeding before the judgment is issued. […] Likewise, with regard to inclusion of other rights different from those already included in the application by the Commission, this Court has established that the petitioners may invoke said rights. It is they who are entitled to all the rights embodied in the American Convention, and not admitting this would constitute an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of International Human rights Law. It should be understood that the above, regarding other rights, is in connection with facts already included in the application. […] This Court also has the authority to analyze possible violation of articles of the Convention that were not included in the application brief and in the reply to the application, as well as in the representatives’ brief containing pleadings and motions, based on the principle of iura novit curia, firmly supported by international jurisprudence, “in the sense that the judge has the authority and even the duty to apply 2 108. Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. November 25, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 101, paras. 106 to 3 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. September 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 112, paras. 124 to 126; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. July 8, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 110, para. 178; Case of Herrera Ulloa. July 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 107, para. 142; Case of Maritza Urrutia. November 27, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 103, para. 134; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra nota 2, para. 128; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. February 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 98, para. 153.