18. The representatives agreed with the Commission and repeated the criteria established in the cases of Veliz Franco et al. and the Cotton Field. They added that it was false that the State had “never” accepted the Court’s competence to hear violations of the rights recognized in the Convention of Belém do Pará because, in the cases of the Río Negro Massacres and Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar), the Court had declared that Guatemala was internationally responsible for violating Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará,4 “a responsibility that was acknowledged by [the State] itself, without questioning the Court’s competence.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 19. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “the Convention of Belém do Pará”) on January 4, 1995, without any reservations or limitations. Article 12 of this treaty indicates the possibility of lodging “petitions” with the Commission, with “denunciations or complaints of violations of [its] Article 7,” establishing that “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 Rules of Procedure of the […] Commission.” As the Court has indicated in the cases of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Véliz Franco v. Guatemala and Espinoza González v. Peru, “it seems clear that the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Belém do Pará Convention grants competence to the Court, by not excluding from its application any of the norms and procedural requirements for individual communications.”5 It is worth emphasizing that, in other contentious cases against Guatemala,6 the Court has declared the State responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and it does not find any factors that would justify diverging from its case law. Accordingly, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of its lack of jurisdiction to rule on Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará establishes: “The States Parties condemn all forms of violence against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: (a) refrain from engaging in any act or practice of violence against women and to ensure that their authorities, officials, personnel, agents, and institutions act in conformity with this obligation; (b) apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women; (c) include in their domestic legislation penal, civil, administrative and any other type of provisions that may be needed to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to adopt appropriate administrative measures where necessary; (d) adopt legal measures to require the perpetrator to refrain from harassing, intimidating or threatening the woman or using any method that harms or endangers her life or integrity, or damages her property; (e) take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to amend or repeal existing laws and regulations or to modify legal or customary practices which sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women; (f) establish fair and effective legal procedures for women who have been subjected to violence which include, among others, protective measures, a timely hearing and effective access to such procedures; (g) establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies; and (h) adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to this Convention.” 5 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. 41. In this regard, the Court indicated that the “wording” of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém de Pará “does not exclude any provision of the American Convention; consequently it must be concluded that the Commission will act in petitions relating to Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention ‘in accordance with the provisions of Articles 44 to 51 of [the American Convention],’ as established in Article 41 of this Convention. Article 51 of the Convention […] refers […] expressly to the submission of cases to the Court,” Similarly, see, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, footnote 22, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, footnote 5. 6 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 17; Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 17, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 36. 4 8