14 Commission by Article 41(f) of the Convention encompasses the different procedures that culminate in the submission of an application to the Court in order to receive a jurisdictional decision from the latter. This Article refers to a sphere in which the powers of both the Commission and the Court are streamlined at their respective moments. It should be recalled that the Court is the only judicial body in these matters.33 56. This does not mean that a State Party that has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the American Convention, but has ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará, can be subjected to the contentious jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, Article 51 cannot be applied, because the provisions of Article 62 of the American Convention must be complied with before this component of Article 51 can take effect. 57. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the jurisdiction that the American Convention confers on the Court ensures that, when a petition system has been established, a guarantee exists that, if appropriate, the Court will exercise judicial control of the matter. This would not be the case under those instruments, such as the CIETFDPD, that do not establish a petition system as a protection mechanism. 58. In conclusion, a systematic interpretation of the relevant provisions in order to resolve this dispute provides even greater support for the contentious jurisdiction of the Court in relation to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 1.3. Teleological interpretation and principle of effectiveness 59. In a teleological interpretation, the purpose of the respective norm is analyzed. To this end, it is pertinent to examine the object and purpose of the treaty itself and, if applicable, to analyze the purposes of the regional protection system. In this regard, the systematic and the teleological interpretation are directly related. 60. The State indicated that, although “the object and purpose of the Convention of Belém do Pará is the total elimination of violence against women,” “this ultimate purpose should not be mistaken for […] the judicialization of the system of rights and obligations that regulates the instrument.” 61. The purpose of the petition system embodied in Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará is to enhance the right of international individual petition, based on certain clarifications concerning the scope of the gender approach. The adoption of this Convention reflects a uniform concern throughout the hemisphere about the severity of the problem of violence against women, its relationship to the discrimination traditionally suffered by women, and the need to adopt comprehensive strategies to prevent, punish and eliminate it.34 Consequently, the purpose of the existence of a system of individual petitions within a convention of this type is to achieve the greatest right to judicial protection possible in those States that have accepted judicial control by the Court. 62. At this point it is essential to recall the specificity of human rights treaties and the effects that this has on their interpretation and application. On the one hand, their object and purpose is the protection of the human rights of individuals; on the other, they signify the creation of a legal order in which States assume obligations, not in 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 45. 34 Preamble to the Convention of Belém do Pará.