- 17 - “Factual grounds” of the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence.41 In its final written arguments, the State specified that Senator Cepeda’s record as a politician and journalist may be examined as part of the context of the case, but that “the Court could not include, even as part of the context, those facts that refer to matters that might also constitute alleged violations of the State’s obligations.” 45. The Commission considered that it was not incumbent on it to make observations. For their part, the representatives stated that this background information represented facts aimed at describing Senator Cepeda’s professional career and the harassment that he and his family suffered in reprisal for his work. They also indicated that none of the alleged violations was based on this background information, so that the Court would not establish any juridical consequence based on them. 46. The Court observes that the State is attempting to exclude certain facts presented by the representatives that allegedly occurred before the date on which it accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on June 21, 1985. These facts include references to the personal life of Manuel Cepeda Vargas and the circumstances in which he carried out his activities, and therefore do not constitute facts that prima facie or per se are excluded from the Court’s jurisdiction. In other words, the Court is able to refer to or incorporate this background information on the facts, as elements of the context of the merits of the case, without deriving specific juridical consequences from them.42 Consequently, the fourth preliminary objection filed by the State is rejected. IV MERITS 47. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, in accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention.43 Having decided the preliminary objections, and observed the terms of the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Court will now decide the merits of the dispute. IV.1 PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 48. The State requested that a limit should be placed on the facts in dispute, specifically so that the Court would not consider “new facts presented by the representatives of the [presumed] victims”44 and additional facts presented by both 41 Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, April 4, 2009, paras. 37, 40 to 44 and 46. 42 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 38, para. 82; García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 76, and Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 67. See also, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 29, para. 16. 43 Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 44 Thus, the State considered that the following should be excluded: a section of the pleadings and motions brief entitled “Manuel Cepeda Vargas: promoter of the Patriotic Union political party,” because it contained the representatives’ assessment of the origin and actions of this party, which correspond to the Patriotic Union case; accusations made by Mr. Cepeda as a parliamentarian about acts by senior military commanders and paramilitary groups against this movement or party; about alleged extermination operations against members of the UP and the corresponding reports prepared by State agencies and international organizations (including decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman); the reference to declarations by the actual President of the Republic of