13 C. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae to use the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) as grounds to hear the case 39. The State argued that the Inter-American Court lacked jurisdiction “[t]o use the Charter of the Organization of American States [issued in Bogota in 1948, hereinafter “Charter of the OAS”] as grounds to hear […] the present case.” The State indicated that the representatives based the jurisdiction of this Tribunal not only on the American Convention but also on said Charter, which did not grant the Court “any authority whatsoever to act as its supervising body and guardian” and that, therefore, this Tribunal should disqualify itself from using said instrument as grounds for its jurisdiction to hear the merits of the present case. 40. The Commission did not present arguments in this sense, since, as stated, it was not arguing the alleged violation of the Charter of the OAS. 41. On their part, the representatives stated that they had not asked that the Court declare any violation whatsoever regarding the Charter of the OAS. They indicated that “[t]he Charter of the OAS, as well as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man should help to interpret and determine the scope of the obligations the States have and the moment at which they acquired those obligations that were perfected upon signing and ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights.” In that sense, they added that it was an argument with the purpose of “including in the establishment of the international responsibility of the State of Mexico the obligations it acquired and it promised to fulfill as of 1948”, date on which the Charter of the OAS was signed. 42. The representative’s response makes it clear that there is no controversy regarding the State’s argument in this sense. The Court states that, in effect, it does not have jurisdiction to apply stipulations of the Charter of the OAS within the framework of a contentious proceeding.38 43. Due to the aforementioned, the Tribunal considers that the preliminary objection filed has no purpose, thus, it shall be dismissed. D. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear of alleged violations to Mr. RadillaPacheco’s right to life and to humane treatment (Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention) in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco 44. The Court observes that the objection filed by the State is based on the presumption according to which a disappeared person is considered dead once a considerable period of time has gone by without having news of their whereabouts or remains. The State indicates that, under an analysis of comparative law and jurisprudence, the death and alleged torture of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco would have occurred prior to the date of ratification of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on December 16, 1998, since as of the date of his arrest, on August 25, 1974, more than 24 years had gone by without any news of his whereabouts. 45. It is not possible for this Tribunal to reach at this stage of the proceedings the conclusion that results from the presumption argued by the State, without this implying prejudgment on certain facts stated and the body of evidence provided. In effect, the presumption of death invoked by the State, as such, has a iuris tantum nature, that is, it 38 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC 10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 44, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra note 28, para. 58.