10 25. The Commission indicated that it had “not attributed responsibility to the State of Peru for the violation of the Convention of Belém do Pará as a result of the [alleged] sexual violence in itself, but as a result of the failure to investigate this as an obligation of a continuing nature. When referring to the absence of an investigation, the Commission did not indicated that it attributed responsibility to the State under the Convention of Belém do Pará specifically due to the inaction prior to the ratification of that instrument. This responsibility is included under the relevant paragraphs of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Thus, since the absence of an investigation continued after June 4, 1996, and persists to date, the responsibility for the said omissions under the Convention of Belém do Pará began on that date and, in its Merits Report, the Commission clarified that this is how it understood the matter. Consequently, the Commission considered that this preliminary objection was also inadmissible. 26. The representatives explained that they had “not alleged non-compliance with the obligations contained in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará […] in relation to the sexual violence, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which [Ms. Espinoza] was subjected during her detention in the DIVISE and the DIRCOTE [sic] in 1993. However, [they] indicated that […] the said article was applicable in this case with regard to Peru’s obligation to ensure the punishment and the eradication of violations against Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. [They] also argue[d] that this provision had not been complied with owing to the [presumed] acts of violence that she suffered […] after June 4, 1996, while she was detained. Consequently, [they] ask[ed] the Court to reject the second preliminary objection presented by the Peruvian State.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 27. The Court notes that, as is the case of every organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the power inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The instruments recognizing the optional clause on compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presume the acceptance by the States that present them of the Court’s right to decide any dispute concerning its jurisdiction. 7 28. The State deposited the document ratifying the Convention of Belém do Pará before the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States on June 4, 1996. Based on this, and on the principle of non-retroactivity codified in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court may examine acts or facts that have taken place following the date of this ratification, 8 as well as continuing or permanent facts that persist after that date. 9 29. Taking this into account, the Court considers that it is unable to rule on the possible violations of Article 7 of the Convention Belém do Pará as a result of the alleged torture and sexual violence that Gladys Espinoza supposedly suffered and the alleged lack of investigation that supposedly occurred before June 4, 1996. However, the Court does have competence to rule on whether these facts constituted a violation of the American Convention. Furthermore, as it has in other cases, including the cases of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru and J. v. Peru, the Court will analyze the arguments concerning the supposed denial of justice that occurred after that date, for which the Court does have competence, in light of the alleged 7 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paras. 32 and 34, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 18. 8 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 39 and 40, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 19. 9 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 22, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 30.