8 reparations in the present case; iii) the Due Process of Law Foundation on May 12, 2016, on the “special gravity” and “prolonged nature” of forced displacement; iv) Ms. Léa Réus on May 12, 2016, on eventual comprehensive reparations in the present case; v) the Professors of the Department of Sociopolitical and Legal Studies and of the Faculty of Constitutional Law and Human Rights, as well as advanced law degree students of the Instituto Tecnológico y Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO) on May 13, 2016, on potential comprehensive reparations in the present case, and vi) Santiago Medina Villarreal and the Corporation for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights “REINICIAR” on May 13, 2016, on the alleged preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State of Guatemala, the use of criminal categories to determine human rights violations and the alleged acts of genocide against the Maya Achí people. 10. Final written arguments and observations. The Court received the final written arguments and observations of the representatives, the State and the Commission, respectively, on May 30, 2016. In its brief, the State forwarded a “Proposal for a Settlement Agreement.” In addition, on May 31 and 2 June 2016 the representatives forwarded documents requested as helpful evidence, together with a general list of victims and certificates that would establish their identity. 11. Observations of the representatives, the State and the Commission. On June 20, 2016, the representatives submitted two briefs in which they indicated that they had no observations to make on the annexes submitted by the State together with its final written arguments and that they did not accept the proposed settlement. The Commission submitted its observations on the proposed settlement agreement on June 28, 2016, extemporaneously. 12. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began deliberation of this judgement on November 25, 2016. III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Guatemala has been a State Party to this instrument since May 25, 1978, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. 7 IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In its answering brief the State filed the following preliminary objections: A) lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis; B) lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae; C) failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and D) “lack of authority to file another claim against the State of Guatemala for the same facts.” A. Objection regarding lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis A.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 15. The State filed an objection regarding lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. It argued that on March 9, 1987 “it filed a reservation by which it limited the Court’s jurisdiction […to examine] matters after the date on which said declaration [was] filed.” It indicated that the Court “cannot 7 On March 9, 1987 the State presented before the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) Governmental decision No. 123-87 of February 20, 1987, recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court with the following limitation: “(Article 2) the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is for an indefinite term, of a general character, under conditions of reciprocity and with the reservation that the cases in which the jurisdiction is recognized are exclusively those that occurred after the date on which this declaration is submitted to the Secretary of the Organization of American States.” Available at: http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/tratados_B32_Convencion_Americana_sobre_Rights_Humanos.htm. This point will be analyzed in Chapter IV on Preliminary Objections.