2 American Court (Article 41, subparagraphs a, b, c, d and g, of the Convention); and b) the function that does culminates in an application before the Inter-American Court (idem, subparagraph f). Each of these functions has its own nature, regulation and effects, in the terms of the Convention. 8. With regard to the power or “competence” mentioned sub b), subparagraph f) of Article 41 sets out a specific task which must be considered in order to establish the corresponding legal assumptions, characteristics and consequences: “to take action on petitions and other communications pursuant to its authority under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of this Convention.” 9. As may be seen, the competence assigned to the Commission in subparagraph f) of Article 41 covers the different acts that culminate in the submission of an application before the Court in order to receive from this a jurisdictional decision. Consequently, it refers to an ambit in which the powers of the Commission and the Court are adjusted, at their respective times. 10. The first provision expressly mentioned in subparagraph f) of Article 41 encompasses two fundamental issues, one of a subjective nature (giving legal standing to the procedure) and the other objective (material competence): a) the legal standing to take action on petitions and thus set in movement the procedure that will culminate in the deployment of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court; and b) the subject-matter of these petitions, which is also that of the respective procedure before the Commission and before the Court: behavior that constitutes “a violation of this Convention by a State Party.” The same consideration exists in Article 45.1, which regulates the hypothesis of a complaint by one State Party against another, due to “a violation of a human right set forth in this Convention.” 11. The same indication with regard to the subject-matter of the petition, the procedure that this sets in motion and the possible application that the Commission will submit to the Court appears in various parts of Article 48.1, initial paragraph, which refers to “a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention;” and subparagraph f) which alludes to friendly settlement on the basis of “respect for the human rights recognized in this Convention.” 12. Throughout the body of regulations applicable to the Commission there are other provisions which are relevant for the matter in hand, such as Articles 1 and 23.1 of the Statute and 31, 41.b and 45.1 of the Rules of Procedure. 13. In this way, exercise of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court is initiated. According to the Convention, this jurisdiction extends to interpretation or application of the American Convention (Article 62.1 and 3), which, in this regard, is implemented in matters relating to the “violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention” (Article 63.1). Thus the ambit of the Court’s material competence on contentious matters is also established. 14. Evidently, preparatory activities for the contentious proceeding before the Court and participation in these in no way exhaust the powers of the Commission and the Court. The former can and does carry out other activities of great importance for the promotion and defense of human rights, and even endeavors to expand the inter-American regime of protection; this may be inferred from the last subparagraphs of Article 19 of its Statute, in particular. Likewise, the advisory