20 both the Commission and the Court are competent to examine the instant case, since Peru ratified the Convention and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. It asserted that the accused, irrespective of whether they are terrorists, mercenaries, or common criminals, have the rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention. In contrast with the reservation made by the State during the public hearing, the Commission affirmed that “if the objections are raised now, they should be supported now.” 82. As to this objection, the Court adheres to the observations that it made on examining the legitimacy of FASIC and of its representatives (supra 77). As regards statements concerning the principle of sovereignty and its implications in the present case, reference is made to the examination of the tenth objection (infra 101 and 102). 83. As concerns the exclusive subject matter in the sixth objection, the Court emphasizes that it can not nor should not discuss or judge the character of the crimes attributed to the alleged victims, certainly very grave, as that is reserved to the appropriate criminal court. The Court is called upon only to decide on concrete violations of the provisions of the Convention, concerning any persons and independent of the legal situation that applies to them or of the legality or illegally of their conduct from the perspective of the criminal norms that could be applicable under national law. 84. A behavior that risks or harms the legal benefits set forth in Article 32 of the Convention, which was invoked by Peru, would result in the intervention of the regular courts for a judgment as to the liability of those who committed it, but will not override the human rights of the accused nor deprive them of the possibility of access to organs of international jurisdiction. On another occasion, the Court has commented on the seriousness of the real or alleged crimes committed by the victim, holding that the Court is not concerned with the innocence or the guilt of the accused, and that a decision of that nature is in the providence of the domestic criminal court (cfr. Suárez Rosero, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, para. 37). 85. Consequently, the Court deems that this preliminary objection is inadmissible. IX “PREMATURE DECISION” TO SEND THE CASE TO THE COURT Seventh Objection 86. The seventh objection interposed by the State concerns “the premature decision of the Honorable Commission to send the present case to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.” 87. The Court summarizes the positions of the State and the Commission on this issue as follows.