13. Observations on the annexes to the final written arguments. On August 19, 2022, the representative submitted his observations on the annexes that the State presented along with its final written arguments. The same day, the Inter-American Commission stated that it had no observations to make on the subject. 14. Helpful evidence and information. On October 18, 2022, based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the State was asked to submit certain information. 9 The State responded to the request on November 4, 2022. 15. The Court deliberated on this judgment on November 7 and 8, 2022. III JURISDICTION 16. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, as Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 17. In the instant case, the State presented a preliminary objection that it called “the subsidiary nature of the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights.” A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 18. The State argued that it had a “legitimate national investigation and reparation mechanism derived from the technical work of the Truth Commission,” implemented in 2003. It noted that the Truth Commission, in its final report, had analyzed the case of Mr. Aroca Palma in relation to the crime of extrajudicial execution, assigning it the number C 97. 19. It pointed out that in July 2010, after it issued its report, the Truth Commission handed over the documentation it had gathered to the Public Prosecution Service, the body that created the Directorate of the Truth and Human Rights Commission, “given the historical importance of justicializing the events that occurred.” In addition, in light of the Truth Commission’s recommendations, 2013 saw the enactment of “The law for the reparation of victims and the justicialization of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity by the court; k) measure of February 13, 2002, incorporating officer EPYE’s brief into the case file, and specifying the date and time for him to be examined by the court; l) measure of February 18, 2002 issued by the Second Court of the Fourth National Police District; m) measure of June 11, 2003, ordering the authorities to locate and arrest Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez in order for him to serve the sentence imposed by the Court; n) ruling of the Disciplinary Court dismissing or discharging officer EPYE from the ranks of the National Police; ñ) memorandum No. 2015-278-UATH-DNPJeI, stating that Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez and EPYE had been discharged from the ranks of the National Police; o) communication No. 2015-1939-DGPA-SL-CH, stating that Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez had been discharged from the ranks of the National Police; p) memorandum No. FGE-GCVDH-2019-00547M from the Prosecutor’s Office, detailing the actions undertaken in the Joffre Aroca case for the alleged crime of extrajudicial execution; q) brief of September 23, 2009, issued by the Inter-American Commission, informing the Ecuadorian State of the petitioning party’s willingness to enter into a process aimed at a friendly settlement; r) brief issued by the Commission informing the State that the petitioner had decided to terminate its involvement in the friendly settlement process and continue with the proceedings; s) communication No. DPE-DNRVPI-2018-0059-0 of August 16, 2018 from the Office for Reparation to Victims and Protection Against Impunity of the Ombudsman’s Office of Ecuador; t) activities carried out by the Public Prosecution Service; and u) judgment No. 33-20-IN/21 and consolidated cases, of May 5, 2021, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, in which it applied the inter-American standard on the use of force. 9 To that end, the State was asked to report the following: a) the current state of the Public Prosecution Service’s investigation into the facts included in the Truth Commission’s report on the death of Joffre Aroca; and b) the person or persons under investigation by the Public Prosecution Service. 6