4 8. On May 6, 2008 the Tribunal asked the State to present, along with its final written arguments, evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case.4 9. On June 5, 2008 the representatives forwarded their final written arguments with which they enclosed documentary evidence. On that same date, the State forwarded its final written arguments, along with part of the evidence requested by the Court to facilitate adjudication of the case.5 On June 6, 2008 the Commission forwarded its final written arguments. 10. On July 15, 2008 the State presented a brief “expanding its final written arguments.” (supra para. 9) In that brief, it forwarded evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 8) and it objected the requests made by the representatives in their final written arguments with regard to payment of compensations and the reimbursement of costs and expenses. On November 26, 2008 the State forwarded information regarding the new diligences developed in the investigation of the present case by national authorities (infra para. 47). III JURISDICTION 11. The Inter-American Court is competent, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear the present case, since Guatemala is a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. Similarly, the State ratified the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearances on February 25, 2000. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 12. Within the framework of a negotiation process started before the InterAmerican Commission after the adoption of Report No. 71/04 (supra para. 1), the State and the representatives signed an “agreement of specific compliance of the recommendations issued by the Inter-American Commission.” In that agreement the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the forced disappearance of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín and the subsequent denial of justice. The State has 4 The evidence requested consisted in information and documents related to: 1) the State’s comments and information regarding the bill that would modify the scope of application of the military criminal jurisdiction, expanding it to common or related crimes committed by military officials, as well as the situation of said bill in the Congress of the Republic and the possibilities of the National Executive to request a moratorium. The State shall forward a copy of said bill; 2) information regarding the inclusion of this case in the national reconciliation plan and its situation in the Congress of the Republic. The State shall forward a copy of the bill; 3) information regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala that ordered the transfer of the military criminal jurisdiction to the regular jurisdiction of the dossiers of cases regarding common or related crimes committed by military officials, pursuant with Article 2 of Decree No. 4196, and 4) information on the specific steps the State would adopt to activate the transfer of the dossier of the present case from the Judge Advocate to courts of the regular jurisdiction. The State forwarded the following documents: a) Decree 41-96 of June 12, 1996; b) Agreement No. 26-96 of July 22, 1996; c) Decree No. 32-2006 Organic Law of the National Institute of Forensic Sciences of Guatemala; d) Initiative No. 3590 and Opinion, which recommends the approval of the National Commission for the Search of People victim of forced disappearances and other forms of disappearance; and e) Initiative No. 2794 and Opinion, which recommends approval of the Military Code. 5