10. Final written arguments and observations. On April 19, 2022, the state submitted its closing written arguments, along with accompanying documentation. On April 25, 2022, the representative and the Commission presented their final written arguments and observations, respectively. 11. Observations on the annexes to the final written arguments. On May 6, 2022, the Commission reported that it had no observations to make regarding the documents included by the state together with its final written arguments. The representative did not forward any observations on the state's annexes. 12. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated on this judgment on June 22, 2022. III COMPETENCE 13. The Court is competent to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Costa Rica has been a State Party to the Convention since April 8, 1970, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 2, 1980. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Acknowledgment of responsibility by the state and observations of the representative and the Commission 14. The state indicated during the public hearing that "fully supporting and trusting of inter-American institutions, the Costa Rican state recognizes its international responsibility for the violation of articles 8(1), 24, 25(1), and 26 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Guevara Díaz.” It indicated that its recognition "is limited to the facts of the Report on the Merits, in terms of both its analysis of the facts and its legal analysis." Later, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that its “acknowledgment of international responsibility is limited to what happened in this specific case at the moment of the dismissal and subsequent administrative and judicial actions, conceding the [Commission’s] analysis of the merits.” The State also asked the Court to establish measures to guarantee the rights violated and reparations for the consequences of the violations committed, in keeping with the principles of its case law. 15. The Commission viewed positively the acknowledgment made by the state. However, it noted that the dispute over the facts persists with regard to the representatives’ claims with regard to the work that Mr. Guevara did at the Ministry of Finance during the years prior to his hiring and with regard to the pleading of the representatives regarding the violation of the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities. The representative did not make any specific observations on the state's acknowledgment of responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 16. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its authority in relation to the international protection of human rights, a matter of 5