6 [requesting the Court] not to admit the statement made by Francisco Villalba [supra para. 10] in case number UNDH 2100 as part of the body of evidence in the instant case”; and third, that the Court find that “the State has complied with its obligation of forwarding [to the Court] the statement made by Salvatore Mancuso under the Justice and Peace Law.” 17. With regard to the first two matters mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the parties were advised on August 25, 2008, that, when delivering its judgment in the instant case, the Court would assess the evidence submitted and decide on its admissibility together with that of the respective arguments and observations of the parties; which the Court will proceed to do infra. The third request indicated above (supra para. 16) was made to the Court during its eightieth regular session. In that regard, after evaluating the State’s opinion, the Court decided to reiterate its previous position (supra paras. 11 and 12) and ask the State to forward the recording and the transcript of the complete statement made by Salvatore Mancuso under the Justice and Peace Law without editing it or altering the sequence. The Court advised the State that it would respect the confidentiality of this information and evaluate the pertinence of incorporating into the body of evidence aspects relevant to the case of Valle Jaramillo et al., and that it would respect, as necessary, the right of the parties to contest the evidence against them. 18. On September 22, 2008, the State sent a brief, as well as a copy “of the recordings of all the occasions between 2006 and 2008 on which [Salvatore] Mancuso was brought before prosecutors” under the Justice and Peace Law. In this regard, the Court informed the State that, respecting the confidentiality of the information received, it had only forwarded to the Commission and the representatives a copy of the State’s brief and its attachment. Moreover, the Court reiterated to the State that it would reserved for itself the review of the video recordings in order to evaluate the pertinence of incorporating the relevant parts concerning the instant case into the body of evidence. III JURISDICTION 19. The Court is competent to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE STATE 20. The State acknowledged its responsibility in its brief answering the application as follows: (a) It “acknowledged its international responsibility by omission, since it failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the rights embodied in Articles: i. 4(1), 5 and 7(1), and 7(2) [of the Convention], with regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; ii. 5 and 7(1), and 7(2) [of the Convention], with regard to Nelly Valle Jaramillo[;] iii. 5, 7(1) and 7(2), and 22 of the American Convention, with regard to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof;