6 the Inter-American Court to rule on the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 13. The Court takes notes of the withdrawal of the preliminary objection initially filed by the State in relation to its subject-matter jurisdiction with regard to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, a matter decided prior to the present case.15 Furthermore, it accepts this withdrawal in the terms expressed by Mexico and, consequently, will analyze the alleged violations of said treaty in the corresponding chapters of this Judgment. IV JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. In addition, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987, and the InterAmerican Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women on November 12, 1998. V PROVISIONAL MEASURES 15. On April 7, 2009, the Inter-American Commission, in the framework of the case being processed before it, asked the Court to order the State to adopt provisional measures in favor of the alleged victims and of other persons who were directly or indirectly connected to the present case. On April 9, 2009, the President of the Court at the time, issued an Order for urgent measures calling on the State to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the alleged victims and others.16 The Court ratified this order on April 30, 2009.17 The provisional measures ordered by the Court remain in force at the time this Judgment is delivered and its issuance does not affect the continuity of the aforesaid measures. VI PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 16. During the public hearing, Mexico made a partial acknowledgement of its international responsibility in the following terms: The Mexican State acknowledges before the Court: first, that the absence of specialized medical care for Mrs. Fernández Ortega, which should have included the psychological and not merely the physical aspect, and which should have been provided immediately, constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Second, that the destruction of the scientific evidence taken from the victim also constituted a flagrant violation Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Third, that despite the efforts made 15 Cf. González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paras. 31 to 77. 16 Cf. Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 9, 2009. 17 Cf. Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 30, 2009.