42 * * 145. As it has already indicated (supra para. 40), the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret and apply all the provisions of the American Convention, not only those that recognize specific rights, but also those that establish general obligations, such as those arising from Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, regularly interpreted and applied by the Court, as well as other provisions, including the norms of interpretation established in Article 29 of this instrument. 146. Regarding the so-called “Federal Clause” established in Article 28 of the American Convention, on previous occasions the Court has had the opportunity to refer to the scope of the international human rights obligations of federal states. Recently, in Escher et al. the Court indicated that, under its contentious competence, the Court had established clearly that “case law, which has stood unchanged for more than a century, holds that a State cannot plead its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation.”131 This issue was also dealt with under its advisory competence, establishing that “international provisions that concern the protection of human rights in the American States […] must be respected by the American States parties to the respective conventions, regardless of whether they have a federal or a unitary structure.”132 Thus, the Court considers that States Parties must guarantee and ensure respect for all the rights embodied in the American Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without any limitation or exception based on their internal structure. The legal system and practices of the entities that form a Federal State party to the Convention must conform thereto.133 147. In the instant case, the Commission and the representatives alleged non-compliance with Articles 2 and 28 of the Convention owing to the supposed absence of public policies that could have prevented, on the one hand, the murder of Mr. Garibaldi and, on the other hand, the proliferation of armed groups carrying out clandestine evictions. In this regard, the Court has already determined (supra paras. 20 and 22) that any fact prior to the State’s acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction, in other words prior to December 10, 1998, is outside the Court’s temporal competence. Consequently, the Court does not have competence to examine whether Brazil provided the necessary measures to prevent Sétimo Garibaldi’s death. Moreover, according to the Inter-American Commission’s application, the purpose of this case is constituted by the errors and omissions in the Police Investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and not the situation with regard to evictions in the state of Paraná. 148. In addition and lastly, the Court considers, as it did in the Case of Escher et al.,134 that the allegation about the possible failure to observe the obligations arising from Article 28 of the Convention should refer to a fact with sufficient entity to be considered as true non-compliance. In the instant case, a comment by the State during a working meeting regarding the difficulties in communicating with a component of the Federal State does not, in itself, mean or entail non-compliance with this provision. The Court notes that, during 131 Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 219. Cf. Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 46. 132 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 140. The Court has ruled similarly in provisional measures: “Brazil is a federal State, and […] the Urso Branco Prison is located in one of its federative units; however, this does not exempt the State from complying with its protection obligations. […] The State must organize its internal structures and adopt all necessary measures, in accordance with its political and administrative structure, to comply with these provisional measures.” Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph. 133 Cf. Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 219. 134 Cf. Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 220.