3 application, the representative requested the Court to declare that, in addition to the violations alleged by the Commission, the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 11 (Right to Privacy), and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American Convention, and Articles I, V, VI, XVII, XVIII, XXV, XXVI, and XXVIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “American Declaration”). By virtue of this, it requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation. 8. On September 26, 2006, the State filed a brief containing the answer to the application and its comments on the brief of requests and arguments (hereinafter “answer to the application”).4 In said brief, the State reiterated, as it had done before the Commission, “[its] express acceptance [of] the conclusions contained in Report No. 26/05,” as well as of the “legal consequences deriving therefrom.” Notwithstanding, it questioned the arguments of the representative with regard to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 7, 11, and 24 of the Convention and Articles I, V, VI, XVII, XVIII, XXV, XXVI, and XXVIII of the American Declaration, as well as the claims on reparations. The State further stated that on February 18, 2006 it had reiterated before the Commission its will to comply with the recommendations of Report No. 26/05 and it requested that, upon failure to reach an agreement on the reparations with the representative, “the Government and the Commission, in joint presentation, request the […] Inter-American Court […] to determine the reparations that might be adequate according to law in its capacity as the exclusive jurisdictional body of the system.” Notwithstanding, the State argued that up to the date of notice of the application it had not received a formal response to said request. II JURISDICTION 9. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case, pursuant to the terms of Articles 62(3) of the Convention, since Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 10. The application filed by the Commission was served on the State and on the representative on May 26, 2006. During the proceeding before the Court, in addition to the main briefs forwarded by the parties (supra paras. 7 and 8), the President of the Court5 (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the following statements rendered before a notary public (affidavits) be admitted: a) a supplement to the statement given by Roberto Horacio Serrago; b) the statement of the alleged victim; and c) the accounting expert statement of José Esteban Cornejo. Likewise, it ordered that medical and psychological examinations be carried out and expert statements be given by teams of medical, psychiatric, or psychological specialists appointed from lists of three candidates proposed by the representative and the State. In consideration of the specific circumstances of the case, it also summoned the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State to a 4 The State appointed Jorge Nelson Cardozo as Agent and Alberto Javier Salgado as Deputy Agent (record on the merits, Volume I, folio 63). 5 Cf. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 6, 2006, First Operative Paragraph (record on the merits, Volume II, folio 559).