6 Jurists;19 Amnesty International,20 and the Human Rights Centre of the School of Law of Essex University, the International Center for Transitional Justice, and Redress.21 15. On September 22, 2009, the representatives presented a brief in which they informed the Court of “supervening facts,” concerning the appointment of Arturo Chávez Chávez to head the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. 16. The Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted the Commission and the State a delay to submit their observations on the representatives’ brief mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On October 15, 2009, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make. On October 16, 2009, the State indicated that “the facts set out by the representatives […] bear absolutely no relationship to the proceedings in this matter; nor do they provide any element that [the] Court could take into consideration to help it decide the matter.” It added that the facts stated by the representatives did not have “a minimum phenomenological connection with the facts of the proceedings; to the contrary, they are attempting to introduce into the proceedings facts that differ from those that comprise its factual framework.” Lastly, it noted that the representatives had not indicated how the appointment of the current Attorney General of the Republic had an impact on or was related to any substantial fact of this matter. 17. In this regard, the Tribunal reiterates that, even though supervening facts may be submitted by the parties at any stage of the proceedings prior to the judgment, “this does not mean that any situation or incident that occurs after those procedural acts may constitute a supervening fact within the proceedings. A fact of this nature must be phenomenologically linked [those] of the proceeding; and therefore it is not enough that certain situations or facts […] be related to facts and arguments presented in a case for this Tribunal to be able to hear them.”22 18. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that, in exercise of its contentious jurisdiction as an international human rights court, its function in the instant case is to determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations, and not the personal responsibility of Mr. Chávez Chávez or other public officials. That task belongs exclusively to the State, although the Court can verify if the State has complied with the relevant obligations arising from the American Convention. 19. Based on the above, the Court does not admit the representatives’ brief indicated in paragraph 15 supra and will limit itself to examining the arguments of the parties regarding the alleged international responsibility of the State. III PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 20. The State made a partial acknowledgement of international responsibility as follows: 19 Brief presented by Leah Hoctor on July 17, 2009. 20 Brief presented by Widney Brown on July 13, 2009. 21 Brief presented on September 21, 2009, by Clara Sandoval and students of the Human Rights Center and School of Law of Essex University, Carla Ferstman and Marta Valiñas of Redress; Javier Ciurlizza and Catalina Díaz of the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), Ruth Rubio Marín of the European University Institute, and Mariclaire Acosta, Ximena Andión Ibañez and Gail Aguilar Castañón. 22 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 67.