8 protection of human rights, the empowerment of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives to submit pleadings, motions and evidence autonomously must be interpreted in accordance with their position as titleholders of the rights embodied in the Convention and as beneficiaries of the protection offered by the system.18 Nevertheless, there are certain limits to their participation in these proceedings, pursuant to the Convention and in the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction.19 That is, the purpose of the representatives´ brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence is to give effect to the procedural attribute of locus standi in judicio that this Court has already recognized, in its jurisprudence, to the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives.20 27. It is also well established in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that the representatives may inform the Court of so-called supervening facts, which may be submitted to the Court at any moment of the proceedings before a judgment is delivered.21 It is also worth mentioning that, with regard to the incorporation of other rights distinct than those included in the Commission’s application, the Court has established that the petitioners may invoke such rights, provided that they refer to the facts already included in the application.22 Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide, in each case, on the admissibility of allegations of this nature in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties (supra para. 17).23 28. The recognition of the alleged victims´ locus standi in judicio as well as their right to submit legal arguments that are different from those of the Commission, yet based on the same facts, does not infringe upon the State’s right to defend itself. The State always has the opportunity, at all stages of the proceedings before this Tribunal, to respond to the allegations of the Commission and the representatives. This opportunity is available to the State at both the written and oral stages of the proceedings. Furthermore, in the present case, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State was given the opportunity to submit an additional written brief in order to fully respond to all legal arguments put forward by the representatives (supra para. 6). Thus, the State’s right to defend itself against the allegations submitted by the representatives in the present case has been respected and ensured at all times. 29. The Court is thus of the view that, in accordance with the Convention, the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and its jurisprudence, the alleged victims and their representatives were entitled to participate in all stages of the present proceedings and allege violations of rights which were not contemplated by the Commission in its application. For the above reasons, the Court dismisses the second preliminary objection. the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 57. 18 Cf. OAS, General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 1890 (XXXII-O/02), Evaluation of the Workings of the Inter-American System for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights with a View to its Improvement and Strengthening, and OAS, General Assembly, AG/RES. 2291 (XXXVII-O/07), Strengthening of Human Rights Systems Pursuant to the Mandates Arising from the Summits of the Americas. 19 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 17, para. 58, and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, supra note 17, para. 55. 20 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, supra note 17, para. 53. 21 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 8, para. 154; Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 121, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 162. 22 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 8, para. 155; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 92, and Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 121. 23 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 17, para. 58, and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, supra note 17, para. 55.