3 5. On July 21, 2006, the State submitted its brief answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”), in which it formulated a “preliminary objection concerning the Court’s lack of competence to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture,” and made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility concerning the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the scope and content of which will be determined in chapter V of this judgment. In addition, the State indicated that “it did not acknowledge international responsibility for violating the rights established in Articles [4, 5, 7 and 16], because it considered that the facts included in the application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had not been duly proved, since the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) was currently conducting an investigative procedure.” II COMPETENCE 6. The Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 7. Peru has been a State Party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “Convention against Torture”) since March 28, 1991. According to the provisions of its Article 22, this treaty entered into force for the State on April 28, 1991. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 8. The Commission’s application was notified to the representatives and to the State on March 20 and 22, 2006, respectively. During the proceedings before the Court, in addition to the presentation of the principal briefs forwarded by the parties (supra paras. 1, 4 and 5), on August 29 and September 1, 2006, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their arguments on the preliminary objection formulated by the State. The President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the testimony of two next of kin of the alleged victims proposed by the Commission, and of one former Deputy proposed by the representatives, as well as an expert report proposed by the representatives should be received by means of statements made before notary public (affidavits);4 the parties were given the opportunity to submit their observations on these statements. Also, considering the special circumstances of the case, the President convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing to hear the testimony of three of the next of kin of the alleged victims and of a former Deputy proposed by the Commission, and also the final arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection, and possible merits, reparations and costs. This public hearing was held on January 23 and 24, 2007, during the seventy-fourth regular session of the Court.5 At this hearing the Court requested the parties to present helpful evidence and to clarify some points. Also, on the instructions of the President and based on Article 45(2) of the Rules of 4 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on December 11, 2006. At the hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paolo Carozza, Commissioner; Ariel Dulitzky, Norma Colledani, Lilly Ching and Manuela Cuvi, advisers; (b) for the representatives: Gloria Margarita Cano Legua, lawyer of the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) and Carolina Maida Loayza Tamayo, lawyer; and (c) for the State: Angel Marín Lozada, Agent, Luis Alberto Salgado Tantte, deputy Agent, Alberto Gutiérrez La Madrid, Ambassador of Peru to Costa Rica, and Miguel Guzmán, Councilor of the Peruvian Diplomatic Mission in Costa Rica. 5