representatives presented their observations. On May 18, 2013, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it had not observations to make, and the State did not present observations. These communications were forwarded to the parties and to the Commission on May 21, 2013. 14. Useful evidence. The Secretariat forwarded to the State the communication of May 27, 2013, in which, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President, it asked the State to submit, by June 3, 2013, at the latest, any comments it considered pertinent with regard to the observations submitted by the representatives according to which “[t]he articles of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Criminal Procedure included in the annexes [to the final arguments] are not applicable to the investigation in the case of Mr. García Lucero,” and to provide the norms corresponding to the statute of limitations in relation to civil actions. On June 10, 2013, the State presented part of the information requested in that communication. 15. Other communications. The representatives forwarded: (a) the brief of May 13, 2013, in which they explained the difference in the numbering of the paragraphs between the Spanish and the English version of a psychological report provided as evidence, and (b) the brief of May 30, 2013, in which they referred to a communication of the Secretariat of May 21, 2013, advising them “that the Court would only take into account [their] observations that referred exclusively to the documents attached […] to the arguments presented by the parties, or those incorporated into the text of the State’s brief with final arguments.” III COMPETENCE 16. Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. At that time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 of the Convention, it declared that it recognized the Court’s competence only with regard to “acts that were subsequent to the date on which it deposited this instrument of ratification or, in any case, to acts that began to be executed after March 11, 1990.” The State has argued in its preliminary objection that the Court does not have competence to hear no this case (infra para. 17). Consequently, first, the Court will decide the preliminary objection filed by Chile and, subsequently, if it is legally admissible, the Court will take a decision on the merits and the reparations requested in this case. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on September 30, 1988. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION LACK OF TEMPORAL AND MATERIAL COMPETENCE A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 17. The State alleged the “Court’s lack of temporal and material competence.” It indicated that Chile had ratified the American Convention and accepted the competence of the Inter-American Commission and Court on August 21, 1990, and that, when doing so, it had placed on record that the acceptance of competence […] referred to acts subsequent to the date on which the instrument of ratification was deposited and, in any case, to acts that began to be executed after March 11, 1990.” It affirmed that, in the instant case, this “temporal restriction” had been “blatantly violated,” because it presented “acts that 8