43 e) the alleged victims’ anguish was made substantially worse in this case due to the State’s affirmative obstruction of justice; f) the State’s failure to investigate the massacre and clarify the facts and motives has also left the alleged victims with a deep sense of uncertainty and fear that the massacre could happen again; and g) the alleged victims have also suffered intensely because they have been unable to provide proper burials for their loved ones and because they have had to endure two decades of forcible separation from their traditional land, which is the seat of their culture and spiritual well-being. Arguments of the Commission 88. The Commission did not specifically submit arguments of law regarding the alleged violation of the right established in Article 5 of the American Convention. Arguments of the State 89. The State also did not expressly present arguments of law regarding the alleged violation of the right established in Article 5 of the American Convention. The Court’s Assessment 90. Article 5(1) of the American Convention provides that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 91. The Court observes that the Commission did not submit arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right protected in Article 5 of the American Convention. Nevertheless, it is now well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the representatives may argue violations of the Convention other than those alleged by the Commission, as long as such legal arguments are based upon the facts set out in the application.59 The petitioners are the holders of all of the rights enshrined in the Convention; thus, preventing them from advancing their own legal arguments would be an undue restriction upon their right of access to justice, which derives from their condition as subjects of international human rights law.60 Furthermore, this Court has the competence – based upon the American Convention and grounded in the iura novit curia principle, which is solidly supported in international law – to study the possible violation of Convention provisions that have not been alleged in the pleadings submitted before it, in the understanding that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions with regard to the relevant facts.61 59 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers . Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 179. 60 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 59, para. 122; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 179. 61 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, para. 126.