- 18 - the Commission and the representatives that are not directly related to this case.45 More specifically, at different procedural moments, the State insisted that the Court declare that the global phenomenon of paramilitarism, the paramilitaries’ demobilization process, the implementation of the Justice and Peace Law, and the possible application of Law 1312 of 2009, exceed the purpose of this case. 49. It has been the Court’s constant case law in the cases that it hears that the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application, provided they do not invoke new facts that do not appear in the application,46 which constitutes the factual framework for the proceedings.47 In addition, since a contentious case is, substantially, a litigation between a State and a petitioner or presumed victim,48 the latter can refer to facts that explain, contextualize, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application or else respond to the claims of the State,49 based on their arguments and the evidence they provide, without impairing the procedural balance or the adversarial principle, because the State is given procedural opportunities to respond to these allegations at all stages of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court can be informed of supervening facts at any stage of the proceedings before it delivers judgment,50 provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings.51 In each case, it is for the Court to determine the need to prove the facts, as they were presented by the parties or taking into account other elements of the body of evidence,52 provided the right to defense of the parties and the purpose of the litigation are respected. 50. In cases involving highly complex facts, that occurred over extended periods of time and in which the existence of patterns or practices of massive, systematic or Colombia during his political campaign; the alleged abandonment of his studies and academic activities by Iván Cepeda at one point; alleged threats against relatives of Manuel Cepeda following his death, and the facts indicated in its fourth preliminary objection. Cf. brief in answer to the application, para. 176. 45 In its answer, the State presented “subsidiarily,” arguments on the interpretation to be given to these facts, as well as the material assessment that, in its opinion, should be given to the probative elements offered by the representatives. Cf. brief in answer to the application, para. 224. 46 Cf. “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 148, and Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 232. 47 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, para. 59; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 62, and Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 232. 48 The recent reform of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (and even of those of the Commission) reflects this conception. The introduction to the reforms indicates that “[t]he principal reform introduced by the new Rules of Procedure relates to the role of the Commission in the proceedings before the Court. In this regard, the different actors of the system that took part in this consultation referred to the advisability of modifying some aspects of the Commission’s participation in the proceedings before the Court, granting greater prominence in the litigation to the representatives of the victims or presumed victims and the defendant State; thereby enhancing the role of the Commission as an organ of the inter-American system, and thus improving the procedural balance between the parties.” Cf. Statement of motives for the reform of the Rules of Procedure, available, in all four languages, at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/reglamento.cfm. 49 Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 46, para. 154; Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 32, and Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 42. 50 Cf., similarly, Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 47, para. 154; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 32, and Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 42. 51 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 46, para. 155; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 174, and Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 228. 52 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 36, para. 19.