Institute, Together for Girls, Futures Without Violence, The Equality Institute, Prevention Collaborative, Children's Institute at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI), Raising Voices, BRAVE Movement, MenEngage Alliance, Natasha Stott Despoja, Lauren Fite, Raúl R. Herrera and Charlotte Bunch16. 10. Final written arguments and observations. – On April 29, 2022, the State sent its final written arguments and on May 2, 2022, the representatives sent their respective final written arguments, and the Commission presented its final written observations. The State sent 15 annexes along with its final arguments brief and the representatives submitted two annexes. 11. Observations on the annexes to the final arguments. – On May 19, 2022, the State declared that it had no observations regarding the representatives’ annexes to the final written arguments. On May 20, 2022, the Commission formulated its observations on the annexes sent by the State together with its final arguments and indicated that it had no observations on the representatives' annexes. The representatives did not submit observations. 12. Information on Supervening facts. – On October 7, 2022, the State presented a brief to the Court to inform that “the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia canceled the arrest warrant for extradition [of E.G.A.], under the argument of the expiry of criminal action under that statute of limitations, under Colombian regulations.” On October 14, 2022, the representatives presented a communication of similar content, through which they reported that on September 2, 2022 “the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia issued a decision rejecting the extradition request of [E.G.A.] due to the requirements of the 'Agreement on Extradition' adopted in Caracas, on July 18, 1911." 13. Deliberation of the case. – The Court deliberated this judgment, in a virtual session, on November 17 and 18, 2022, during the 154th Regular Session. III JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Bolivia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 19, 1979 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. In addition, Bolivia deposited the instrument of ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará on December 5, 1994. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. The State filed two preliminary objections, which will be analyzed below in the following order: a) the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and b) the alleged incompetence ratione materiae of the Court over Articles 6 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. A. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission the enhanced duty of due diligence, presence of gender stereotypes in the investigation and revictimization in this specific case. 16 The brief, signed by Mary Ellsberg, Daniela Ligiero, Esta Soler, Emma Fulu, Lori Heise, Shanaaz Mathews, Elizabeth Dartnall, Lori S. Michau, Paul Zeitz, Laxman Belbase, Natasha Stott Despoja, Lauren Fite, Raúl R. Herrera, Charlotte Bunch, Lina Abirafeh and Jannifer McCleary Sills, refers to: (i) the obligations of States to prevent and punish sexual violence against children, and (ii) measures of structural reform in Bolivia. 7