12 jurisdiction to examine violations of those conventions.” It also held that forced disappearance was not classified as a crime in Guatemala at the time of the facts of this case, and that it must apply its domestic legislation according to the principle that ‘without law there is no crime, process or punishment’. Finally, it held that neither the Court nor the Commission “can rule on the violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” 27. The Commission argued that the Court has repeatedly applied Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. It also pointed out that the Court has consistently reiterated that Article XIII of the ICFDP, in relation to Article 62 of the American Convention, establishes the power of the Court to hear matters related to compliance with the commitments assumed by the States Parties to that instrument. It also held that the determination of whether or not a forced disappearance exists is a matter of substance, and therefore it is not appropriate to make a preliminary ruling in this regard. 28. The representatives indicated that the Court is competent to hear the violation of Article I of the CIDFP, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, because Guatemala ratified the former on February 25, 2000 and the latter on April 4, 1995. On the other hand, they argued that the prohibition of genocide should be interpreted as an extension of the right to life recognized in the American Convention, taking into account “the rule of interpretation 29(c)” of said treaty, as well as the fact that Guatemala has ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. B.1.2. Considerations of the Court 29. First, Guatemala deposited its instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP) with the OAS General Secretariat on February 25, 2000, without any limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction or reservations in force. 14 This Court has repeatedly stated 15 that Article XIII of the ICFDP 16 establishes the Court’s authority to hear matters related to compliance with the commitments assumed by the States Parties through said instrument. In addition, the evaluation of whether certain facts constitute forced disappearance in accordance with the American Convention and the ICFDP is a matter of substance, on which it is not appropriate to make a preliminary ruling. Therefore, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Court to hear alleged violations of the ICFDP. 30. Second, the State ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on January 4, 1995, without reservations or limitations. As the Court has indicated in the cases of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, Espinoza González v. Peru, and Claudina Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, “the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará grants jurisdiction to the Court, since it does not exempt from its application any of the procedural rules and requirements for individual communications.” 17It should be noted that in 14 Cf. Instrument of ratification of the American Convention by Guatemala. Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/a-60.html 15 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 303; Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 29; Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 43 and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 30. 16 Article XIII establishes: “For the purposes of this Convention, the processing of the petitions or communications presented before the Inter-American Commission in which the forced disappearance of persons was alleged shall be subject to the procedures established in the American Convention on Human Rights, and in the Statutes and Rules of Procedure of the Commission and of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […]”. 17 Article 12 of the treaty establishes the possibility of submitting “petitions” to the Commission, containing “denunciations or complaints of violations of Article 7”, and that “the Commission shall consider such claims in accordance with the norms and procedures established by the American Convention on Human Rights and the Statutes and Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for lodging and considering petitions.” In this reRules