III JURISDICTION 15. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to this instrument since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Observations of the parties and of the Commission 16. The State, in a brief of March 4, 2020 (supra para. 10), indicated that it agreed to accept the conclusions reached by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report No. 129/17 and asked the Court to examine the evidence offered, and to rule on both the legal consequences of the accepted facts and the reparations. During the public hearing, the State indicated that “the parties to this case have signed a memorandum of understanding based on the Argentine State’s assumption of its international responsibility for the facts that have been reported, and this includes specific requests […] addressed not only at making reparation to the victim in this case, but also so that, based on the judgment that this Court will deliver, the necessary conditions are implemented to ensure that facts such as those revealed in this case do not happen again.”12 In its final written arguments, the State repeated the requests. In particular, in its brief of March 4, 2020, the State indicated the following: Having examined IACHR Report No. 129/17, which has been submitted to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence presented by the victims’ representatives, and in light of the other facts verified in the case being processed, as well as taking into account its traditional policy of cooperating with the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the Argentine State understands that it should accept the conclusions reached by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights that verified the violation of Articles 7, 8, 11 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. Moreover, with regard to Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, and in accordance with the Commission’s findings in the said report, the Argentine State also acknowledges its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention. In order to delimit the scope of the acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Argentine State advises the Commission and the representatives that, as revealed by IACHR Report No. 129/17 and the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, the police stop and search of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, in the context of their respective cases, did not respect the required inter-American standards, thereby violating Articles 7 and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. For the same purpose, the Argentine State accepts the allegations of the Commission and the representatives that, subsequently, these police stop and search actions were not subject to adequate control of conventionality, thereby violating Articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument and also, in the specific case of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, the violation of Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention, because the Commission verified that the reasons alleged to stop and search him were discriminatory.” […] 12 Statement by the State’s representatives during the public hearing held on March 11, 2020. 6