4 9. The Court is competent to hear the instant case. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and on that same date it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court referred to in Article 62. 10. In submitting the case to the Inter-American Court, on May 25, 1994, the Commission designated Michael Reisman as its Delegate and Edith Márquez-Rodríguez, Executive Secretary of the Commission, and Meredith Caplan, an attorney of the Secretariat of the Commission, as assistants. In the same communication, the Commission informed the Court that the petitioners are the parents of Guillermo Maqueda, Ernesto Maqueda and Licia de-Maqueda. 11. By means of the Resolution of June 22, 1994, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President"), Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia delegated the Presidency to Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, Vice President of the Court, to hear this case, because he is a "member and President of the Argentine-Chilean Arbitration Court for the determination of the boundary line between Landmark 62 and Mount Fitz Roy." 12. On June 24, 1994 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), after the preliminary examination by the President ad hoc, notified the Government about the case, and advised it that it was allowed a period of three months to answer the complaint (Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure), two weeks to designate its agent and deputy agent (Articles 28(3) and 21(3) of the Rules of Procedure) and 30 days to file preliminary objections (Article 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure). 13. By note of the same date, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President ad hoc, advised the Government that, in accordance with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure and 10(3) of its Statute, it had 30 days to appoint an ad hoc Judge. 14. By note of July 8, 1994, the Government designated Orlando Enrique Sella, Ambassador of the Republic of Argentina to the Government of Costa Rica, to represent the Government in this case. 15. On September 21, 1994, Argentina petitioned the Court for an extension of three months to answer the complaint. By note of September 21, 1994, the Secretariat informed the Government of the President ad hoc's decision to grant an extension of 45 days to answer the petition. 16. By note of October 4, 1994, the Commission, pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, notified the Court of its decision to discontinue the action brought in the Maqueda vs. Argentina Case. This decision was made on the basis of an agreement that "takes into account the interests of the parties and conforms with the spirit and letter of the Convention," and whose compliance had been ascertained. II 17. On November 1, 1994, the Secretariat asked the Commission to send all the documentation related to the discontinuance of the action, in particular a copy of the agreement between the parties, the remarks of Mr. Guillermo Maqueda and his parents, and the published decree that granted Mr. Maqueda conditional liberty. The Secretariat also informed the Government about the Commission's decision to discontinue the action brought in the case. 18. By note of November 2, 1994, the Commission submitted a copy of the September 20, 1994 agreement between the parties and of Decree Nº 1680/94, published in the Official Bulletin Nº 27.895, Section 1, which granted Mr. Maqueda conditional liberty.