46 Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 131. The representatives of the alleged victim requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for violating Article 11 of the Convention to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia and of her next of kin, because, during her detention, she was subjected to arbitrary and abusive interference in her private life and that of her family, and in her correspondence. In this respect they alleged that: a) While the victim and her family were being watched, they and their property were photographed; the correspondence of the alleged victim with her former husband was violated; and her captors prevented her from communicating freely with her family, because she was forced to lie about the real situation, which implied interference in her private life. The right to privacy of the victim was also violated by State agents when they insulted the victim affecting her self-esteem, and when she was obliged to make public declarations containing false facts about herself, which entailed the risk of her reputation being discredited; and b) At no time did the alleged victim enjoy the protection of the State to clarify the abuse to which she was subjected, owing to the absence of an investigation to prosecute and punish those responsible. Arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 132. The Commission did not refer to violation of Article 11 of the Convention, alleged by the representatives. Arguments of the State 133. The State did not present any specific argument with regard to the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 134. Since this case is being processed under the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, this Court refers to what was established in the “Five Pensioners” case, regarding whether the representatives may allege facts or rights that are not included in the application. In that case the Court stated: Regarding the incorporation of rights other than those included in the application filed by the Commission, the Court considers that the petitioners may invoke such rights. They are the holders of all the rights embodied in the American Convention and, if this were not admissible, it would be an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of international human rights law. It is understood that the foregoing, with regard to other rights, refers to facts that are already contained in the application.100 135. Article 11 of the Convention establishes that: 1. 100 Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 14, para. 155.