11 a claim that a judgment has been incorrect because of the violation of the due process, the Court may not refer to this claim as a preliminary objection, since the Court will need to consider the merits of the case and determine whether such right under the Convention has been violated. 20. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the basic premise of the preliminary objection raised by the State is that no human rights violation has been committed in the instant case, which is precisely what will be discussed in the merits of the case. When assessing the merit of the petition the Court shall determine whether the domestic procedures responded, as alleged by the State, to all the acts claimed by the Commission and the representatives before this Tribunal and whether the State’s international obligations were respected in doing so. 21. On the other hand, the above conclusion is not modified by the fact that the State alleges that the national tribunals have exercised an ex officio “conventionality control” between the domestic rules and the American Convention. In fact, the merits stage shall determine whether the alleged conventionality control alleged by the State involved a respect for the State’s international obligations in the light of this Tribunal’s case law and under the applicable international law. 22. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection lodged by the State of Mexico. IV JURISDICTION 23. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with article 62(3) of the Convention, given the fact that Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “Convention against Torture”) on November 2, 1987. V EVIDENCE 24. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court's case law regarding the evidence and assessment thereof,30 the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the different procedural stages, as well as the affidavits rendered and those received at the public hearing. In doing so, the Tribunal shall assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.31 1. Witness and Expert Witness Evidence 30 Cf. Case of the "White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Rosendo Cantu et al v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C N° 216; para. 27; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C N° 217, para. 39. 31 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala, supra note 30, para. 50; Case of Rosendo Cantu et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 27; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 39.