5 considered. Hence, amici curiai briefs are an important element for the strengthening of the Inter-American System of Human Rights, as they reflect the views of members of society who contribute to the debate and enlarge the evidence available to the Court. Thus, the Court rejects the objection raised by the State that the brief referred to above was timebarred (supra para. 14). The observations submitted by Argentina regarding the contents of the amicus curiae briefs will be taken into consideration by the Court when the pertinent matters are examined. III JURISDICTION 17. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE STATE AND PARTIAL WAIVER OF RIGHTS FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES 18. In its brief containing the answer to the application, the State made an acknowledgment of responsibility under the following terms: [Th]e Argentine State has adopted, through all the stages of the proceedings, an attitude of compromising will aimed at reaching a friendly settlement in the instant case. Such political will has been reflected on the answers to the applicant’s observations, in the context of which the Honorable Court ma[y] note that, at no procedural stage of the proceedings brought before the Illustrious Commission, has the Argentine State submitted any allegations, neither of fact nor of law, which challenge the alleged violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression to the detriment of Eduardo Gabriel Kimel. On the contrary, the mere reading of the documents submitted in the instant case allows inferring the permanent will of the State to recreate the friendly settlement process and find a satisfactory solution for both parties. […] [Th]e Argentine State agrees with the Illustrious Commission that in the case in point, imposing a criminal penalty to Eduardo Gabriel Kimel constituted a violation of his right to freedom of thought and expression as enshrined by Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, and taking into consideration the elements generally accepted in analyzing and determining the reasonable duration of a proceeding –the complexity of the case, the diligence of the judicial authorities, and the procedural steps adopted by the interested party-, the Argentine State agrees with the Illustrious Commission that Eduardo Gabriel Kimel was not tried within a reasonable time, as provided by Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Finally, and bearing in mind that to date the various legislative bills submitted in Congress in order to amend its domestic criminal legislation on freedom of thought and expression have not been passed, the Argentine State agrees with the Illustrious Commission that, in the case in point, the lack of sufficient accuracy in the criminal legislation punishing defamation and preventing the infringement of the right to freedom of thought and expression entails the State’s failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic measures as provided for in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the Argentine State acknowledges its international responsibility and the legal consequences thereof, in relation to the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, regarding the general obligation to respect and ensure rights, as well as to adopt legislative or other measures as may be necessary to uphold the rights protected, pursuant to Articles 1 (1) and 2 of the Convention [.] Furthermore, the Argentine State acknowledges its international re[s]ponsibility and the legal consequences thereof regarding the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as Eduardo Gabriel Kimel was not tried within a reasonable time .