2 could transmit with the same certainty that these acts will not be repeated and that, if they are, the population can be sure that they will never go without punishment, since without excuse or pretext the most exemplary of the punishments established in the legal code in force will be imposed in order to establish a sound precedent that banishes the temptation to repeat this type of crimes that damage social conscience. The present is a case in which the judges that examined the case coincided that it escapes the traditional turn of the matters submitted to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, where the States appear as the accused not for procedural violations, as in the present case, but for executing State policies that intentionally restrict the most elemental rights of its inhabitants. Jurisdiction of the Court The Honorable Court is competent to know the case of merit in virtue of the ratification made of the American Convention by the Guatemalan State on May 25, 1978 and of the acceptance of its jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. As established in Article 62(3) of the American Convention, this Court is competent to know of all cases concerning the interpretations and application of the provisions of the Convention, that are submitted to it, provided that the State Party has previously recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, situation that does not permit doubts regarding said matter. Despite the above, it is fair to mention that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whenever possible, must support that the Court deal with paradigmatic cases that deal with situations that escape procedural slip-ups that affect a single individual tried and convicted in all instances by one of the State parties of the Convention for committing an abominable crime; to permit that this Honorable Court deal with those paradigmatic cases in which its intervention is of vital and urgent importance for the validity of human rights of groups of citizens that suffer from some type of violation that distances the signing States from the Convention, of its reason of existence as such and lead them astray from the purposes that the Convention seeks. Of the procedural deficiencies This case puts in evidence regretful and relevant mistakes of some operators of justice that committed errors not of bad faith in the process but of non-observance in the rigorous application of the procedural rules in force, situation that in a case as delicate as the present, whose sanction is the maximum punishment, must have been observed with extreme thoroughness. Failure to do so resulted in the Court having to issue a judgment against the State of Guatemala due to the procedural records because it was evident that said procedural omissions resulted in the violation of several of the precepts of the American Convention on Human Rights, as expressed in the operative paragraphs of the judgment of merit. Trying to simplify as much as possible the detail of the procedural errors in which the different operators of justice that examined the case of merit participated, the following can be mentioned: