and individuals participating in the Universidad de los Andes Law Clinic. 21 12. Final written arguments and observations. On March 4, 2020, the representatives and the State forwarded their respective final written arguments, and the Commission presented its final written observations. The representatives forwarded a number of annexes together with the aforementioned final written arguments. On the instructions of the President of the Court, the State and the InterAmerican Commission were asked to submit any considerations deemed pertinent on the attached documentation submitted by the representatives. On June 2, 2021, the State responded in this regard, and the Inter-American Commission said that it had no observations to make. 13. Deliberation of this case. The Court deliberated on this judgment in a virtual session on August 25 and 26, 2021. 22 III COMPETENCE 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Colombia has been a State party to this instrument since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. Colombia deposited the instrument of accession to the Convention of Belém do Pará on November 15, 1995 and the instrument of accession to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on January 19, 1999. IV PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 15. As a preliminary matter, the State alleged that certain facts and allegations presented by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief did not fall within the factual framework presented by the Commission. First, the State requested that the facts related to (i) the alleged acquiescence of public officials to the violent events that took place in the La Modelo Prison on April 27, 2000, (ii) the alleged attempted kidnapping of journalist Ignacio Gómez Gómez on May 24, 2000, as well as the subsequent actions of State agents regarding it, and (iii) the entry, exit, and security protocols for visitors to the La Modelo Prison be excluded. Second, the State asked that the arguments of the representatives regarding the (i) alleged breach of the obligation to respect as regards the facts that took place on May 25, 2000, (ii) the alleged participation of State agents in the facts involved in the threats, kidnapping, torture, and rape suffered by Ms. Bedoya, (iii) the State’s alleged aggravated responsibility regarding the acts of sexual violence suffered by Ms. Bedoya, and (iv) the State’s alleged responsibility for violation of the right to defend human rights also be excluded, based on the argument that they fall outside the object of the litigation. 16. The Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is comprised 21 The brief was signed by Mariana Ardila Trujillo, Valeria Silva Fonseca, Marcela Sánchez Buitrago, Beatriz Helena Quintero García, Adriana María Benjumea Rúa, María Fernanda Molano Giraldo, José Elías Turizo Vanegas, Lucía Baca, Paula Andrea Carvajal Mejía, Salomé Bustos Mesa, Laura Ximena Urueña Camacho, Ana María Rojas Vargas, María Susana Peralta Ramón, Juan Felipe Rivera Osorio, Angélica Cocomá Ricaurte, and Enith Bula Beleño and addresses: (i) violence due to prejudice and reproductive violence; (ii) measures of reparation (“conceptual approach,” “guaranteeing comprehensive reparations,” “comprehensive reparations with a gender perspective in cases of sexual violence” and “international guidelines on reparations for victims of sexual violence”); and (iii) “request: national case of sexual violence, reproductive violence, and violence based on victims’ sexuality as a measure of comprehensive reparations with a gender approach.” This judgment was deliberated and approved during the one hundred and forty-third regular sessions, which, due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, was held remotely, using technological means, as provided for by the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 22 8