76 international responsibility of the State and applicable under International Human Rights Law, actions or omissions by any public authority, whatever its hierarchic position, are chargeable to the State which is responsible under the terms set forth in the American Convention59. 155. For all the above, the Court concludes that the State violated article 21 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, in connection with articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. X OTHER ARTICLES OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 156. In its brief with the final pleadings, the Commission alleged that given the nature of the relationship that the Awas Tingni Community has with its traditional land and natural resources, the State is responsible for the violation of other rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission stated that, by ignoring and rejecting the territorial claim of the Community and granting a logging concession within the traditional land of the Community without consulting the opinion of the Community, “the State breached a combination” of the following articles enshrined in the Convention: 4 (Right to Life), 11 (Right to Privacy), 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), 16 (Freedom of Association), 17 (Rights of the Family); 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), and 23 (Right to Participate in Government). * * * Considerations of the Court 157. With respect to the alleged violation of articles 4, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22 and 23 of the Convention, as argued by the Commission in its brief on final pleadings, the Court has considered that even when the violation of any article of the Convention has not been alleged in the petition brief, this does not impede the violation being declared by the Court, if the proven facts lead to conclude that such a violation did in fact occur.60 However, in the instant case, the Court refers to what was decided in this same Judgment in connection with the right to property and the right to judicial protection of the members of the Awas Tingni Community, and it also dismisses the violation of rights protected by the abovementioned article because the Commission did not state the grounds for it in its brief on final arguments. XI APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) Arguments of the Commission 158. In its application brief, the Commission requested that the Court, pursuant to article 63(1) of the Convention, declare that the State must: 59 cfr. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 9, para. 168; Case of the Constitutional Court , supra note 10, para. 109; and Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 47, para. 210. 60 cfr. Durand and Ugarte case, supra note 12, para.84; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. C Series No. 52, para. 178; and Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. C Series No. 36, para. 112.