41 provisions of the international treaties ratified by the latter. Moreover, Article 28 of the American Convention establishes obligations, compliance with which, as in the case of the obligations arising from Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, is subject to verification and decisions by the supervisory organs of the inter-American system. Indeed, “the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law requires the States Party not only to enact and implement measures of a legislative nature, but also all necessary measures to ensure the full and effective enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the American Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction.” Based on these findings, it asked the Court to declare that Brazil had failed to comply with the said provision of the Convention. 143. The representatives stated that, since Brazil is a Federal State, it has the responsibility to comply with all the provisions of the American Convention, including Article 28, and that it cannot exempt itself of its responsibility owing to a negative response from the states that comprise the Union. In particular, they indicated that, at a working meeting held on October 11, 2007, during the proceedings before the Commission, the State had advised that “it had been unable to establish contact with the authorities of the state of Paraná and, therefore, could not [provide] information on compliance with the recommendations” included in the Commission’s Report No. 13/07. In their opinion, this attitude is evidence of the State’s omissions. Even though it refused to assume responsibility for the violations perpetrated in the instant case, alleging discrepancies between the Federal State and the state entity, Brazil was not complying with its international obligation to ensure compliance with the Convention. Irrespective of its federal structure, the State should have respected its international obligation to adopt adequate measures to guarantee the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction. The State failed to comply with the provisions of Article 28 of the Convention by failing to facilitate a complete, impartial and effective investigation of the facts, holding the authors of the crime responsible; by failing to make full reparation to the victim’s next of kin, and by not preventing the death of rural workers. Consequently, they considered that there was sufficient evidence to sentence the State for the violation of the said article. 144. The State affirmed that the Commission and the representatives had not clarified the actions that Brazil should have taken to avoid violating Article 28 of the American Convention, and that it was not possible to know the scope of this supposed violation, because they had only made general accusations. It explained that the information it had provided concerning the instant case during the said working meeting at the Commission was offered in good faith to indicate the reasons for the State’s delay in complying with all the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission in its Report on Admissibility and Merits. Furthermore, it indicated that Article 28 of the American Convention is a procedural norm that does not alter the substance of the individual rights in question. In its final written arguments, Brazil added that the Commission, “[b]y alleging the violation of Articles 2 and 28 of the Convention, based on the supposed absence of policies that could have prevented the murder of Sétimo Garibaldi,” was seeking a way to submit the State’s alleged responsibility for this murder to the Court. The State cannot be held responsible for facts that occurred before its express acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and it is clear that the supposed omission of a preventive policy could only occur prior to Sétimo Garibaldi’s death. Starting with the proceedings before the Commission, and in the answer to the application, the State had provided information on the public policies implemented by the Federal State to combat violence in rural areas and to promote the agrarian reform; consequently, it denied that it was using its federal structure as justification for not complying with the provisions of Articles 2 and 28 of the Convention. Lastly, it indicated that, based on Articles 48(1) and 63 of the American Convention, the Commission and the Court can only examine the rights and freedoms established therein and asked the Court to consider the claims of the parties relating to Article 28 of the Convention irreceivable. *