6 compliance with its international obligations on the matter,19 and x) Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación A.C., [Fundar, Center for Analysis and Investigation] which submitted two briefs, one on the indigenous rights recognized by the State and the other on the alleged inexistence of remedies against the rejection of the jurisdiction of ordinary justice in favor of the military justice system.20 These briefs were duly forwarded to the parties so that they could make any observations they deemed pertinent. 10. On June 28, 2010, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State sent their final written arguments. In this regard, the Court ordered a period of until July 16, 2010 for the parties to make observations regarding the documents presented by the State and the parties along with their final written arguments. The 13, 15, and 16, of July, 2010, respectively, the Inter-American Commission, the State, and the representatives submitted their observations. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 11. In the answer to the application, the State filed the objection of “lack of jurisdiction of the [Inter-American Court] to examine violations of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women.” Subsequently, at the public hearing, the State “withdr[ew] the preliminary objection invoked in the answer to the application and the brief of the representatives.” 12. The Commission and the representatives requested the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by Mexico and affirmed the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to rule on the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 13. The Court takes note of the withdrawal of the preliminary objection initially filed by the State in relation to its subject-matter jurisdiction with regard to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, a matter decided prior to the present case.21 Furthermore, it accepts this withdrawal in the terms expressed by Mexico and, consequently, will analyze the alleged violations of said treaty in the corresponding chapters of this Judgment. IV JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. In addition, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women on November 12, 1998. 19 The brief was received, in English and Spanish, by the Secretariat of the Court on June 11 and 12, 2010, respectively, and is signed by James C. Hopkins, Associate Professor of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Politics Program, of Rogers College of Law, of the University of Arizona. 20 The original briefs were received by the Secretariat of the Court on June 11, 2010, and are signed by Miguel A. Pulido Jiménez, Executive Director of Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación, A.C. 21 Cf. González et al. (“Cotton Fields”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paras. 31 and 77.