enshrined in Article 1(1); for the violation of provisions 1, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; for the violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Article 2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 6 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture), all of these violations to the detriment of the victims [Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre].”16 22. Furthermore, the Court appreciates the parties’ willingness and efforts to reach a friendly settlement agreement, which also reflects the willingness of Mexico to comprehensively repair the damage caused to the victims by the violations that occurred in this case and to avoid the repetition of such violations. The Court also considers that the settlement reached by the parties contributes to the goals of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, particularly to its objective to find just solutions to specific and structural problems of the case. 17 In addition, it makes it possible to offer reparation for the violations committed against the victims of this case more quickly than if the litigation had followed its normal course before the Court. In order to help accomplish this goal, the Court issues this Judgment in the shortest time possible, paying particular attention to the fact that the settlement reached by the parties requires Mexico to comply with all reparations within a period that begins from the notification of this Court’s Judgment. 23. The Court believes that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility is a positive contribution to this proceeding and to the application of the principles underlying the Convention.18 Moreover, as in other cases,19 the Court considers that a friendly settlement agreement and an acknowledgment of responsibility is legally binding in this case. 24. With regard to the compensation measures set out in the settlement agreed by the State, the victims and their representatives, the Court endorses these under the terms established in this Judgment (infra paras. 63 to 102) since they contribute to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Court will analyze these measures in Chapter VII in order to determine their scope and means of implementation. IV JURISDICTON OF THE COURT 25. In accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, given that Mexico has been a State Party to the Convention since March 24, 1981, and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on September 16, 1998. Mexico also ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on November 2, 1987. 26. The Court recalls that, as a general rule, it has temporary jurisdiction beginning on the date of ratification of the respective instruments and the acknowledgment of its contentious jurisdiction, according to the terms of said ratifications and acknowledgment.20 Even though the 16 Cf. Friendly Settlement Agreement and Acknowledgment of the State’s Responsibility, supra note 9, section “V. Legal basis of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility.” 17 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 19, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 23. 18 Cf. Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43 and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 22. 19 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 179; Caso Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra note 17, para. 19, and Caso García and Family v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 22. 20 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 20 and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 26. 8