Centro Latinoamericano de Derechos Humanos;8 (ii) the Universidad Austral of Buenos Aires;9 (iii) the Círculo de Derechos Humanos of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos;10 (iv) the Asociación de Pensamiento Penal;11 and (v) the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Office on Criminal Cassation Defense of the Province of Buenos Aires.12 10. Final written arguments and observations. On June 4 and 6, 2019, the representatives and the state, respectively, submitted final written arguments, together with their annexes. On June 6, 2019, the Commission submitted its final written observations. 11. Disbursements from the Assistance Fund. On June 10, 2019, the report on the disbursements made from the Legal Assistance Fund of the Court in this case, together with its annexes, was forwarded to the state. The state did not submit its observations on the report. 12. Observations on the annexes to the final written arguments. On June 4 and 6, 2019, respectively, the state and the representatives forwarded their observations on the annexes sent with the final written arguments. The Commission submitted its observations on June 6, 2019. 13. Deliberation of this case. The Court began deliberating this judgment on September 2, 2019. III COMPETENCE 14. The Inter-American Court has competence to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 15. The state filed a preliminary objection questioning the Court’s competence to conduct a review of compliance with human rights conventions of provincial law No. 6730 and its amendments. The Court will analyze the challenge as a preliminary objection in view of the subject matter. A. The Inter-American Court’s lack of competence to conduct a “review of compliance with human rights conventions” of provincial law No. 6730 and its amendments. A.1 Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 16. The state argued that the representatives want the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to rule in the abstract on the compatibility of internal law with the American Convention, law that has no causal relationship with the case in question because it was not in force during the time at The brief signed by María Fabiola Cantú deals with the failure of the province of Mendoza, Argentina, to adapt procedural legislation to international guidelines on the right to appeal. 9 The brief signed by C. Ignacio de Casas deals with the standards of the inter-American system on the right to appeal. 10 The brief signed by Paola Karelin Cahuana Quincho in her capacity as representative of that institution deals with the guarantee of the right to appeal in the Court’s case law. 11 The brief signed by Indiana Guerrero, in her capacity as president of that association, deals with the adequacy of Argentine legislation in light of the American Convention. 12 The brief signed by Gisela de León, Legal Director of CEJIL; María Noel Leoni, Director of CEJIL's Program for the Southern Cone and Bolivia; Juan Pablo Gomara, Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the SCJN and International Organizations Area and the Office of Criminal Cassation Public Defense of the Province of Buenos Aires, and Mario Luis Coriolano, Public Defender before the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Province of Buenos Aires, addressing the status of protection of the right to appeal rulings to a higher court in Argentina. 8 5