the representative was forwarded to the State and the Commission, which were given time to present their observations. Their observations were submitted on October 8, 2020. 12. Deliberation of this case. The Court deliberated on this judgment in a virtual session on November 17, 2020.7 III COMPETENCE 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Recognition by the State, observations of the parties and of the Commission 14. In its answering brief, the State accepted “the conclusions contained in Report on the Merits 147/18 adopted by the […] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights," and consequently, recognized "the Argentine State’s responsibility for the rights violations determined in Report on the Merits 147/18." On making this recognition, the State noted "the marked exceptionality of Mr. Almeida's case," noting the dates, circumstances, and facts characterizing Mr. Almeida's situation and that of his partner, who was a beneficiary of compensation provided for under Law 24,043, as well as the clarity of his statement regarding the situation of supervised release to which he was subjected. 15. Regarding the reparations, the State asked the Court to establish the pecuniary reparations and sums for costs and expenses associated with this procedure based on the criteria of equity. However, it argued that the institutional measures of reparations requested by the representative "ignore the exceptional nature of [Mr.] Almeida’s situation." Effectively, it underscored that "both the courts and the administrative forums have for years used a broader interpretation of cases of supervised release,” for which reason it is not necessary to update the administrative mechanisms or issued new criteria to the personnel involved in processing requests for reparation or amending the law. 16. The Commission “view[ed] very positively the statement of the [...] Argentine State recognizing its international responsibility, which constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this international process and the dignification of the victim.” Regarding the nonpecuniary measures of reparation, it underscored the presence of international responsibility for violation of Article 2 of the Convention for excluding de facto supervised release from being covered under Law 24,043, but that this situation "was in general terms corrected subsequently through […] judicial interpretation." It therefore asked that the pertinence of the measures of reparation proposed by the representative be evaluated based on these considerations. 17. The representative welcomed “the Argentine State's willingness through its current representatives to recognize, in the particular case of this party, its international responsibility for Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and approved during the 138th Regular Period of Sessions, which was held remotely, using technological means, in keeping with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. See Press Release No. 111/2020, of October 29, 2020, available here: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_111_2020.pdf. 7 5