the annexes sent by Argentina together with its final written arguments. On the same date, the Commission indicated that it had no observations in this regard. The representative, on June 30, and the State, on July 1, 2021, presented their observations on the information provided by the Commission pursuant to the request of June 17, 2021. On July 8, 2021, the State and the representative presented their respective observations on what was reported by both parties in response to the request of June 24 of the same year. Lastly, on July 20, 2021, the State indicated that it had no observations regarding the information provided by the representative in response to the request of July 12, 2021. On July 27, 2021, the representative and the Commission forwarded their observations in this regard (supra para. 12). 15. The Court deliberated on this Judgment in a virtual session on September 21 and 23, 2021. 15 III JURISDICTION 16. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. In addition, the Argentine State deposited the respective instruments of ratification for the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 31, 1989, 16 and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 28, 1996. 17 IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 17. In this case, the State raised four preliminary objections, as follows: (a) preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis; (b) preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae; (c) preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies for harm caused by the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with the breach of the duties to provide reparations for human rights violations and adapt domestic law; and (d) preliminary objection for violation of the right to defense and international due process, to the detriment of the Argentine State. A. Preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 18. In its pleadings and motions brief, the State argued that the representative intends to attribute international responsibility to it for facts that took place prior to the entry into force for Argentina of the American Convention, the ICPPT, and the ICFDP. It added in the brief submitting the case that the Commission also used ambiguous wording that does not distinguish between the rights violations attributable to the State to the detriment of the Julien Grisonas couple and the violations to the detriment of Anatole and Victoria. It requested that the objection filed be granted and, consequently, that “all claims by the Commission and the representative based on facts that took place prior to September 5, 1984, be dismissed.” 15 Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, this Judgment was deliberated and approved during the 144th regular session, which was held remotely, using technological means, as provided for by the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 16 Pursuant to Article 22 of the ICPPT, “the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date on which [the] State deposits its instrument of ratification or accession.” 17 Pursuant to Article XX of the ICFDP, “the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day from the date on which [the] State deposited its instrument of ratification or accession.” 8