preliminary objections proposed in the answering brief.7 Subsequently, on March 17, 2023, the Commission and the State submitted their observations to the annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives and the State. 11. Request for helpful evidence. - On March 23, 2023, based on the provisions of Article 58(b) of the Rules, the Court requested that the State submit helpful evidence.8 The request was addressed on March 29th, and the response was subsequently sent to the representatives and the Commission. On April 12, 2023, the first of these parties submitted their observations and the second party indicated they had no observations. 12. Deliberation of the case. - The Court began deliberating this judgment on May 22, 2023. III JURISDICTION 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. Furthermore, it ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on July 27, 2006. 9 IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Acknowledgement of responsibility by the State and observations by the representatives and the Commission 14. During the public hearing held on February 3, 2023, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. According to Ecuador, such responsibility arises from the lack of diligence of the State in determining responsibilities and imposing corresponding sanctions in the face of the criminal offense committed to the detriment of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the State rejected the claim that in this case the elements of an enforced disappearance had occurred. In this regard, it pointed out that it: In this regard, the State affirmed that "[...] as a result of this declaration, Ecuador withdraws the preliminary objections raised in its response to the submission of the case by the IACHR." Cf. Final arguments brief from the State (case file on the merits, page 527). 8 The Court asked the State to submit: “1) Domestic law regarding the creation, duties, and organization of the Peasant Defense Boards. Without prejudice to the general or specific rules of some Boards that may be provided by the State, please see Executive Decree 1963 of 1966 or the equivalent rule on which the statement made by the State in its 2015 Report to the Human Rights Committee is based (attached as Annex 20 of the State's final written arguments), according to which, the Boards are "an informal justice system," "created to prevent livestock and crop theft." In the event that this regulation has been subject to modifications, the State is requested to provide the respective rules in full, including those in force in 2001. 2) Appendix 6 of the Report submitted by the State to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on August 6, 2015, in compliance with the provisions of Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (attached as Appendix 20 of the State's final written arguments). According to the report, Appendix 6 contains information on the judicial processes initiated against members of the Peasant Defense Boards." Cf. Note from the Registrar of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated March 23, 2023 (case file on the merits, page 546). 7 9 Said instrument went into effect for the State on August 26, 2006, as set out in article XX of said Convention. -6-