arguments to which they added a list of corrigenda. The clarifications and helpful evidence were forwarded to the Inter-American Commission and the parties so that they could make any observations they considered pertinent. 13. On August 13, 2012, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State forwarded their observations on the clarifications and helpful evidence submitted with the final written arguments and observations (supra para. 12). In addition, the State presented a copy of the case file of the investigation in response to a request made by the Court during the public hearing. 14. On August 27, 2012, the representatives and the Commission presented their observations on the copy of the investigation case file submitted by the State (supra para. 13). III COMPETENCE 15. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. In the instrument accepting the Court’s competence, the State indicated that this acceptance was applicable to “cases that occurred after the date [on] which this declaration is presented to the Secretary of the Organization of American States,” which took place on March 9, 1987 (infra paras. 35 to 39). In these terms, and in accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, the Court is competent to hear any alleged facts and violations in this case, as indicated in Chapters IV and V of this Judgment (infra paras. 17 to 39). 16. In addition, the Court is also competent to examine any facts and presumed human rights violations relating to non-compliance with some provisions of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, ratified by Guatemala on January 29, 1987; the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication Of Violence against Women, ratified by the State on April 4, 1995, and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, ratified by Guatemala on February 25, 2000, under the terms of the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State (infra Chapter IV). IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 17. In its answering brief, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility with regard to some of the violations alleged in this case, as follows: a) The violation of Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), as well as the failure to comply with the obligation established in Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Ramona Lajuj and Manuel Chen Sánchez. The State expressed its “full acquiescence,” because both these persons were “victims of forced disappearance.” Regarding Manuel Chen, the State also acknowledged the violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, to his detriment; b) The violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 11 (Right to Privacy) of the Convention, to the detriment of María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy. The State 8