14 the obligation to apply the appropriate legal provisions in a case, even when the parties have not invoked them expressly.9 75. The Court notes that the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, claimed by the representatives, not only covers the alleged mistreatment suffered by the alleged victims while they were held in custody in police facilities, but also the prison conditions during their confinement in Peruvian penitentiaries. 76. The Court observes that the alleged mistreatment allegedly suffered by Wilson García-Asto during his confinement in police facilities was not mentioned in the proceedings brought before the Commission (supra para. 68), that it was not included in the facts detailed in the application filed with the Court (supra para. 70), and that it cannot be considered a supervening event in the light of the body of evidence. Therefore, said mistreatment will not be considered by the Court, as it is a new fact in the proceedings. Besides, the events detailed and clarified by the representatives in the proceedings before the Court are those that refer to the prison conditions to which the alleged victims were subjected during their confinement in several Peruvian penitentiaries. 77. The facts related to the events occurred in Castro-Castro Prison between May 6 and May 9, 1992, where Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was held in custody, were not mentioned in the application filed by the Commission before the Court and, therefore, will not be considered by the Court. 78. Moreover, the Court shall not analyze the events occurred in Castro-Castro Prison in 1992, as said facts are the subject matter of a case brought by the Commission before the Court, wherein it is argued that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas is an alleged victim as well. 79. Consequently, the acknowledgment made by the State with regard to the events occurred before September 2000 only comprises those facts which are the subject matter of the instant case and that were detailed in the application, without prejudice to those argued by the representatives which may allow explaining, clarifying or dismissing the facts contained in the application or answering the applicant’s claims. * 80. The Court notes that this Judgment addresses two cases involving different parties and events which occurred, in certain aspects, in different years, and wherein different laws were applied in the proceedings brought before the domestic courts. Taking into account that both cases have been jointly conducted and that they will be addressed in the same judgment, the Court shall analyze the facts and arguments related to Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Wilson García-Asto separately. Cf. Case of the ““Mapiripán Massacre””, supra note 2, para. 57; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 1, para. 203; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 7, para. 85. 9