autonomous violations. 16 In that case, the Court has jurisdiction to examine and rule on possible human rights violations relating to an investigation procedure that occurred following the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, even when the procedure may have started before the acceptance of its contentious jurisdiction. 17 29. The Court observes that both the Commission and the representatives indicated that they are not asking the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for facts prior to December 10, 1998. Based on the foregoing, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the supposed acts and omissions of the State that occurred after December 10, 1998, both in relation to the American Convention and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, because they refer to the obligation of the State to investigate, prosecute and punish. 30. Based on the above, the Court reaffirms its consistent case law in this regard and finds that the preliminary objections are partially substantiated. B. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae in relation to supposed violations of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture B.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 31. The State indicated that acceptance of jurisdiction should be based on the State’s willingness to submit to the international contentious jurisdiction. Thus, it asserted that it had not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction to examine supposed violations of the ICPPT. In the State’s opinion, the application of this Convention would violate the pacta sunt servanda principle. 32. The State argued that the only indication of the Brazilian State’s intentions when accepting the Court’s jurisdiction restricted it to cases relating to the interpretation and application of the American Convention. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae to process and prosecute possible violations of the ICPPT. 33. The Commission underscored that the Court’s reiterated practice has been to apply the ICPPT in order to establish the scope of State responsibility in cases relating to failure to investigate acts of torture. It indicated that both the Commission and the Court had declared violations of these provisions in similar cases, in the understanding that the third paragraph of Article 8 of the ICPPT contained a general clause on jurisdiction which had been accepted by the States when ratifying or adhering to that instrument. Accordingly, it considered that there was no reason for the Court to deviate from its reiterated practice and asked the Court to declare that this preliminary objection was inadmissible. 34. The representatives indicated that, according to the principle of la compétence de la compétence, the Court had the authority to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction or competence. They also indicated that, according to inter-American jurisprudence, interAmerican human rights treaties do not need to contain specific clauses granting jurisdiction to the Court. Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 84, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 49. 16 17 Cf. Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 68, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 25. 9