5 Torture and has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (supra Chapter II), the Court is competent to rule on the alleged responsibility of the State for the violation of this instrument in this case. 13. Regarding the alleged lack of competence ratione temporis, the State argued that “the Convention [against Torture] entered into force for Peru as of April 28, 1991, in other words, after the crime perpetrated against the [alleged] victims,” so that “the said Convention is not applicable, and is not relevant as regards the issue of the failure to investigate acts of torture effectively.” 14. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission stated that it “was not alleging the violation of the Convention against Torture with regard to the facts […] that occurred prior to March 28, 1991.” The Commission indicated that “in accordance with the obligations embodied in the American Convention, the State […] had obligations prior to that date in relation to the prohibition, prevention, investigation and punishment of torture;[however,] after March 28, 1991, State obligations have been classified and defined by the Convention against Torture,” and it is as of that date that “the State failed to comply with the obligation contained in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of [the said] Convention against Torture […] owing to its failure to comply with the obligation to investigate and punish all those responsible for the acts of torture of which Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz were victims.” 15. The representatives stated that “April 28, 1991, [is the] date as of which failure to comply with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention [against Torture] should be considered.” 16. In the instant case, neither the Commission nor the representatives have alleged the violation of the Convention against Torture based on facts prior to its entry into force in Peru. 17. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on March 28, 1991, and, pursuant to Article 22 thereof, it entered into force for the State on April 28, 1991. 18. The facts of this case that occurred prior to April 28, 1991, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court in the terms of this instrument. Nevertheless, the Court will retain its competence to hear the facts or acts that violated the Convention against Torture that occurred after that date.7 19. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of lack of competence filed by the State. V PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 20. During the proceedings before the Court, the State made a partial acknowledgement of international responsibility in the instant case; the Court will therefore proceed to define its scope. competence to apply the Convention against Torture to an international body, whether this was an existing commission, committee or court, or one created in the future.” 7 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra note 6, para. 62.