14. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV THE STATE’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE AGREEMENT ON REPARATIONS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 15. In its answering brief, the State indicated “its willingness to accept the conclusions [and recommendations] contained in the Merits Report adopted by the Inter-American Commission […], as well as the resulting legal consequences.” To this end, it affirmed that “there [was] sufficient evidence to consider that the objective responsibility of the province of Buenos Aires had been constituted in the facts denounced and, consequently, that of the national State.” Furthermore, the State took into account “the circumstance that there was a high degree of certainty about the possibility that agents of the Argentine Federal Police – in other words, Federal Government officials – were involved in the death of Mr. Gutiérrez.” However, it “rejected those passages in the representatives’ brief that tr[ied] to assimilate the facts of the case to situations of a systematic or general nature,” and asked the Court “to limit the subject matter for discussion to the specific circumstances that resulted in the death of [Mr.] Gutiérrez, and the intrigue surrounding the investigation into those responsible.” In this brief, the State did not acknowledge Nilda Gutiérrez, sister of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, as a victim in this case. 16. Regarding the pecuniary reparations requested by the representatives, Argentina asked the Court to establish them based on equity and taking into account “the efforts opportunely made” by the State, even though these “have not provided the comprehensive results that the case deserves.” In addition, it contested some of the claims made by the representatives under the headings of “consequential damage,” “damage to the family wealth” and “loss of earnings.” Regarding the non-pecuniary measures requested by the representatives, Argentina argued that “even though measures are requested to improve institutional operations, their implementation w[ould] exceed the sphere and consequences of this case.” Furthermore, according to the State, “the establishment of specific goals for public policies that, evidently, must be discussed and executed by the authorities elected under a democratic system […],” would exceed the function of a judgment. It also indicated that “this is not the appropriate sphere for broaching” “the implementation of effective mechanisms for complying with decisions of international human rights bodies.” 17. On May 17, 2013, Argentina presented an “Agreement on Reparations” (hereinafter “the Agreement”) entered into with the representatives, which also contains an acknowledgement of international responsibility, as follows: 1) The State ratifies that, having examine Report No. 63/11 in light of the findings in the case, it assumes its international responsibility for the violation, in this case, of Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention […], in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights established in Article 1(1) [thereof], to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and his family group named in the [pleadings, motions and evidence] brief. 2) In order to specify the scope of the State’s assumption of international responsibility, it is placed on record that, as arises from Report No. 63/11 and from the victims’ [pleadings, motions and evidence brief …], the judicial investigation into the events that resulted in the murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was not conducted in accordance with the required international standards. 8