7 20. The fact that the Inter-American Commission continued evaluating the merits of the case and decided to submit the case to the Court, based on “criteria that did not take into consideration any of the measures taken in the domestic jurisdiction,” as the State alleges, cannot be a valid argument to prevent the Court from hearing this case. In this regard, it must be repeated that since the American Convention gives the Court full jurisdiction over all matters relating to a case submitted to its consideration, including those of a procedural nature on which the possibility of its exercising its jurisdiction are based, the Court has interpreted this to mean that the grounds for lodging a case before the Court cannot be the subject of a preliminary objection. The Commission is authorized to decide whether to submit a case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, based on what this organ considers to be the most favorable alternative for the protection of the rights established in the Convention.13 21. Based on the above, the Court rejects the State’s argument concerning the “substantial change in the purpose of the application” and the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and will assess the facts on which these assumptions is based when it examines the merits of this case and reparations. * * * 22. Finally, the State alleged that the Commission had failed to comply with the time frame established in Article 23(2) of its Statute for the adoption of a decision on the merits of the matter. In the State’s opinion, this constituted an “evident procedural flaw” and, “as a result, the Commission [failed to consider] the substantial changes that had occurred in the case.” However, it indicated that this allegation “is not made by the State as an autonomous preliminary objection” and “is linked inseparably to the preliminary objection already filed.” Since this allegation is linked to “the preliminary objection,” now that the latter has been rejected (supra para. 21), the Court does not find it necessary to rule on it. IV JURISDICTION 23. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear the instant case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on the same date. On March 31, 1989, Argentina ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “ICPPT”). V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS Dispute regarding the facts that are the subject of the instant case 24. Before analyzing the merits of the case, the Court will examine the implications of the State’s declarations to determine whether the dispute on the facts subsists, in accordance with its case law and the norms that regulate the proceedings. 13 Cf. Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 54; 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 30; and Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 39.