4 closure and subsequent re-opening of the procedure to investigate the death of Sétimo Garibaldi. Also, on May 18, 2009, the Court received an amicus curiae brief presented by the Coordinator of Social Movements of Paraná,7 describing the context of violence against landless rural workers in the state of Paraná. Lastly, on May 27, 2009, the Human Rights Unit of the Law Department of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Río de Janeiro8 also presented an amicus curiae brief on the scope of the protection of Article 4 of the American Convention in this case. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 11. In its brief answering the application, the State filed four preliminary objections, which the Court will examine in the order in which they were submitted. A) The Court’s lack of competence ‘ratione temporis’ to examine alleged violations that occurred prior to the State’s acceptance of its jurisdiction 12. The State indicated that, according to Article 62 of the Convention and interAmerican case law, the Court is competent to hear cases relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Convention as of the date on which the State accepts its jurisdiction. Brazil accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998, with the reservation of reciprocity and for events occurring after that date. Moreover, the temporal limitation to the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction also derives from the principle of the non-retroactivity of treaties established in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and recognized by the Court in its case law. Therefore, since the death of Sétimo Garibaldi occurred on November 27, 1998, the Court would not have competence to declare violations of the Convention in the instant case. 13. Brazil also indicated that, even though the Commission had only alleged noncompliance with the obligation to investigate Mr. Garibaldi’s murder effectively and adequately and to provide effective remedies to punish those responsible, it was seeking that “the State be sentenced indirectly […] for the violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the [Convention], as claimed by the representatives of the [alleged] victims, and this is not possible, since the death of Sétimo Garibaldi occurred before Brazil had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction.” This conclusion is clear from some of the measures of reparation requested by the Commission that can only be understood in light of an attempt to hold the State responsible for the murder of Sétimo Garibaldi. In this regard, there is flagrant incongruity between the facts that are alleged to have violated the Convention and the reparations requested by the Commission. Hence, the allegations of denial of justice and the violations related to Articles 1(1), 2 and 28 “merely represent a device or a pretext” used by the Commission to submit the application to the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, it asked the Court to admit this preliminary objection. 14. The Commission considered that the State’s argument was “factually incorrect and legally irreceivable,” because the application related to the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate and sanction Mr. Garibaldi’s murder. It is true that the facts that have not been investigated correspond to the said death, but it cannot be inferred that the Commission is seeking a sentence convicting the State for the deprivation of life. The State cannot allege the inadmissibility of the case arguing an extensive interpretation of what the Inter-American Commission expressly requested in its application regarding the failure to 7 8 The brief was signed by Silvana Prestes de Araujo of the Coordinator of Social Movements of Paraná. The brief was signed by: Márcia Nina Bernardes, law professor, Coordinator of the Human Rights Unit, Department of Law, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Río de Janeiro.