detention, an “oral hearing” had been held in which the judge ordered his “immediate release, […], conditional on the alternative measure of appearing before the original court” to clarify the situation. The following day, Mr. Velásquez went to the Eighth Criminal Trial Court for drugtrafficking and environmental crimes which verified that the arrest warrant was no longer in effect and reiterated its annulment. 13. Final written arguments and observations. On May 22, 2015, the State, the representatives and the Commission forwarded their final written arguments and observations, respectively. The State included annexes with its brief. On June 15 and 18, 2015, the representatives and the Commission presented their observations on the annexes submitted by the State with its final written arguments. 14. Deliberation of the case. The Court began deliberating this case on November 16, 2015. III JURISDICTION 15. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Guatemala has been a State Party to this instrument since May 25, 1978, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. Preliminary objection concerning lack of material jurisdiction over Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 16. The State affirmed that the Court was not competent to hear this case in relation to the presumed violations of the rights recognized in the Convention of Belém do Pará. It argued that, when accepting the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, it had done so for cases “relating to the application or interpretation of the American Convention,” and that it had never authorized the Court to hear cases relating to the application or interpretation of other international treaties. It indicated that Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará3 does not automatically imply that the Court has competence ratione materiae to hear and decide complaints based on that treaty because, for the Court to be able to rule on violations of rights contained in instruments other than the American Convention, the State must have authorized this expressly. 17. The Commission noted that the State had filed this objection in the case of Veliz Franco et al., and that the Court had rejected it based on its consistent case law under which it has been applying Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará directly, in the understanding that Article 12 of this instrument incorporates a general clause of competence accepted by the States when ratifying or adhering to it. Therefore, it asked the Court to declare this preliminary objection inadmissible. Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará stipulates: “Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights containing denunciations or complaints of violations of Article 7 of this Convention by a State Party, and the Commission shall consider such claims in accordance with the norms and procedures established by the American Convention on Human Rights and the Statutes and Regulations of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights for lodging and considering petitions.” 3 7