13 interpretative criteria according to which “the express mention of a circumstance excludes all others” and “the special mention precludes an extensive interpretation.” 50. The Tribunal observes that Article XIII of the CIDFP indicates that petitions shall be subject to the procedural provisions of the Commission and of the Court; and that because of this, violations to such Convention have been declared in several cases.30 51. Also, Article 8 of the CIPST authorizes access “to the international fora whose jurisdiction has been recognized by [the] State” to which the violation of this treaty has been attributed. This Convention does not mention the Inter-American Court in any of its Articles. Nevertheless, the Court has declared the violation of this treaty in several cases using a means of complementary interpretation (the preparatory work) to overcome the possible ambiguity of the provision.31 52. The Court finds that, contrary to the arguments submitted by Mexico, the Convention of Belém do Pará mentions the Court’s jurisdiction even more explicitly than the CIPST, because it alludes expressly to the provisions that allow the Commission to forward said cases to the Court. 53. The State also alleged that, although the Convention of Belém do Pará indicates that the Commission should examine petitions in accordance with the norms and procedures established in the American Convention, “this can only mean that it should abide by the provisions of Section 4 of Chapter VII of the American Convention,” because “that is where the rules governing the procedure for an individual petition are established.” Mexico alleged that the fact that the Commission is able to submit a case to the Court “should not be confused” with the individual petition procedure. To the contrary, the State indicated that “Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará is the one according to which the Commission exercises its quasi-jurisdictional functions,” and that “the fact that the processing of a petition before the Inter-American Commission could give rise to a case before the Court […] does not imply that the procedure before the Commission depends on the proceedings before the Court,” which “is evident because the conclusion of a petition is not always a judgment of the Court.” 54. Based on a systematic interpretation, there is nothing in Article 12 to indicate the possibility that the Inter-American Commission should apply Article 51 of the American Convention only partially. It is true that the Inter-American Commission can decide not to forward a case to the Court, but there is no provision in the American Convention or in Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará that prohibits a case being forwarded to the Court if the Commission so decides. Article 51 is clear on this point. 55. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence on the “institutional integrity of the protection system enshrined in the American Convention.” This means, on the one hand, that submitting a case to the consideration of the Court with regard to a State Party that has accepted its contentious jurisdiction entails prior examination of the matter by the Commission.32 On the other hand, the jurisdiction assigned to the 30 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 110; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 24, para. 85, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 61. 31 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 247 and 248. 32 Cf. Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No.G 101/81, paras. 12(b), 16, 20, 21 and 22, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 174.