35. They argued that the adoption of a restrictive interpretation of the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction would not only run counter to the object and purpose of the Convention, but also impair the practical effects of the treaty and the guarantee of protection that it establishes. B.2. Considerations of the Court 36. This Court has determined that it is able to exercise its contentious jurisdiction with regard to inter-American instruments other than the American Convention, when they establish a system of petitions that are subject to international supervision in the regional sphere. 18 Thus, the special declaration of acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction pursuant to the American Convention and in accordance with Article 62 of that instrument allows the Court to examine both the violations of the Convention and those of other interAmerican instruments that grant it competence. 19 37. Even though Article 8 of the Convention against Torture 20 does not explicitly mention the Inter-American Court, this Court has referred to its inherent competence to interpret and apply that Convention. 21 The said article authorizes submission of a case “to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by th[e] State” attributed with the violation of the said treaty. However, the Court has declared the violation of the above-mentioned treaties in different cases, using a supplementary means of interpretation (the preparatory work) if there could be any ambiguity in the provision. 22 Accordingly, in the case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, the Court referred to the historical reason for that article, which was that, when the Convention against Torture was drafted, there were still some Member States of the Organization of American States who were not parties to the American Convention; thus, by including a general clause on jurisdiction that did not refer expressly and exclusively to the Inter-American Court, it opened up the possibility that a greater number of States would ratify or adhere to the Convention against Torture. When adopting that Convention, it was considered important to attribute competence to apply the Convention against Torture to an international organ, whether this was an existing commission, committee, or court or one created in the future. 23 Accordingly, the Commission and, consequently, the Court have competence to examine and declare violations of that Convention. 38. Based on these considerations, the Court reiterates its consistent case law 24 that it is competent to interpret and apply the Convention against Torture and to declare the 18 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, para. 34, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 64. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 37 and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 64. 19 With regard to competence, this article establishes that “[a]fter all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State” attributed with the violation of the treaty, 20 21 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, para. 51, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 65. 22 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 247 and 248; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, para. 51. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, paras. 247 and 248, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 65. 23 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Merits, paras. 247 and 248; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), para. 51; Case of Las Palmeras, para. 34; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, v. Peru. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, footnote 6, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 66. 24 10