In addition, at the time of Mr. Ordóñez’s death, his connection to the facts of the case had not yet proved; therefore, at that time, it was not possible to argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies or one of the grounds on which this is not required. Similarly, therefore, the reference made in the judgment to Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, based on the unjustified delay in the criminal investigations, was not appropriate to reject the said preliminary objection filed by the State. In the instant case, the appropriate course of action was also to reject this objection as unfounded and not merely because it did not comply with the provisions of the said Article 46(2)(c). C. Terminology used in operative paragraphs 4 to 8 of this judgment in relation to the State’s responsibility In operative paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment, the Court indicates that “[t]he State is responsible for the violation of the rights” mentioned and in operative paragraph 7 and 8, the Court asserts that “[t]he State is not responsible” regarding the respective obligations mentioned. Therefore, the judgment fails to mention the word “internationally” that has been used in other rulings before the word “responsible.” The undersigned has accepted the foregoing understanding that the responsibility that may be verified in a judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 9 is always and only international. In fact, according to Article 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 10 “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it.” The Court’s jurisdiction therefore consists in interpreting and applying a treaty so that, for this purpose, the provisions of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are fully applicable; namely: “[a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Moreover, Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [this] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated”. While Article 68(1) of the Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” In addition, Article 65 of the Convention indicates that in the annual report that the Court must submit to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, “[i]t shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments.” 9 10 Hereinafter “the Court”. Hereinafter “the Convention”. 3