12 purpose of the treaty, so that the interpretation does not result in a deterioration in the protection system embodied in the Convention.29 1.2. Systematic interpretation 43. The Court emphasizes that, according to the systematic argument, norms should be interpreted as part of a whole, whose meaning and scope must be established in function of the juridical system to which they belong. 44. The State alleged that it “accept[ed] the jurisdiction” of the Court “exclusively for cases relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention and not for any other international instrument or treaty.” Furthermore, Mexico argued that it is possible not to judicialize the petition system included in the Convention of Belém do Pará, taking into account international human rights instruments that “do not establish mechanisms ipso jure for submitting petitions to international tribunals,” and that have even established “protocols” that include “ad hoc committees to examine individual petitions.” It stressed that “it should not be forgotten that these are not jurisdictional organs but have structures, procedures and powers similar to those of the Inter-American Commission.” 45. The Inter-American System includes treaties that make no reference to the processing of individual petitions as a protection mechanism; treaties that allow the processing of petitions, but restrict this to certain rights, and treaties that allow the processing of petitions in general terms. 46. The Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “the CIETFDPD”) falls within the first category; its Article VI establishes that a Committee for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities “shall be the forum for assessment of progress made in the application of the Convention.” This Convention does not mention the processing of individual petitions denouncing the violation of its provisions. 47. A second category is composed of treaties that grant jurisdiction for processing petitions, but restrict them ratione materiae to certain rights. Thus, for example, Article 19(6) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador,” permits the submission of petitions only with regard to the right to education and trade union rights. 48. The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the CIPST”), the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “the CIDFP”) and the Convention of Belém do Pará form part of the third category. These treaties contain jurisdictional provisions that differ from those of the American Convention, as explained below. 49. The State alleged that the criteria used by the Court for the “application” of the CIPST and the CIDFP were “not applicable,” because these treaties “contain different clauses” to Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, while the latter limits the possibility to the Inter-American Commission alone. Consequently, it applies the 29 Cf. “Other Treaties” Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, paras. 43 to 48; Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paras. 47 to 50; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 20 to 24 and, inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 30.