13. Final written arguments and observations. – On March 4, 2014, the State and the representatives submitted their final written arguments and the Commission filed its final written observations. 14. Observations of the parties and of the Commission. – The President gave the parties and the Commission a deadline to submit any comments they deemed relevant on the annexes that the parties had filed along with their final written arguments (infra para. 113). The State filed its observations as requested on April 7, 2014, the representatives on April 11, 2014, and the Commission on April 14, 2014. The Commission’s comments on the annexes to the State’s final written arguments were submitted after the deadline, 14 and therefore will not be taken into account. 15. Outlays in application of the Court’s Assistance Fund. – The Registrar, on instructions from the President, sent information to the State on March 20, 2014, concerning outlays made under the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in the instant case, and in keeping with the provisions of article 5 of the Court’s rules for the operation of the fund, set a deadline for it to submit any comments it deemed appropriate. The State filed its comments on April 7, 2014. 16. Deliberation of the case. - The Court began deliberations on the instant case on April 15, 2015. III JURISDICTION 17. The Court is competent to hear the instant case pursuant to article 62(3) of the Convention, as Peru ratified the the American Convention on July 28, 1978 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. IV PARTIAL RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY The State’s arguments on recognition of responsibility for the excessive amount of time in conducting the criminal proceedings, and comments by the Commission and the representatives 18. The State asserted in paragraph 231 of its answering brief that, “although […] it acknowledged responsibility in report 535-2011-JUS/PPES for the excessive amount of time it took to conduct the criminal proceedings, […] the delay in processing the criminal trial was not in any sense due to a will to deny justice, but to organizational issues in the courts and the criminal procedural code still in effect in the Lima judicial district,” and therefore asked the Court to take into consideration “the complexity of the criminal process in view of the large volume of evidence that needed to be processed, as well as the many motions brought by the defense attorneys of the accused.” It added that it “offered this recognition of responsibility” on the basis of the principle of proportionality and reasonableness and taking into account this Court’s case law, even though the domestic procedural rules did not set a timetable for the duration of criminal trials. By means of a note from the Registrar on March 19, 2014, the President of the Court granted a term through April 7, 2014 for the parties and the Inter-American Commission to submit their comments on the annexes to the State’s and representatives’ final written arguments. The Commission requested a time extension on April 7, 2014, to submit the requested comments by April 11, 2014, and the extension was granted. 14