8 III COMPETENCE 18. The Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. In addition, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 28, 1991, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women on June 4, 1996. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A) Preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione materiae with regard to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 19. The State argued the Court’s lack of competence ratione materiae to determine violations of the Convention of Belém do Pará because the Court “can only interpret and apply the American Convention and the instruments that expressly grant it competence […].” It added that Peru had “accepted the jurisdiction of the Court exclusively for cases that relate to the interpretation or application of the American Convention and not of other international instruments.” The State based itself on the following arguments: (a) “the authority to establish the responsibility of a State in application of other treaties is not extensive when […] the Court exercises its contentious jurisdictional function”; (b) Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará mentions, expressly and exclusively, the Inter-American Commission as the organ responsible for the protection of [that] Convention”; (c) “the non-judicialization of the system of petitions included in the Convention of Belém do Pará is possible, taking into account [other] international human rights instruments that do not establish mechanisms for submitting petitions to international courts […]”; (d) “the criteria used by the Court in order to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture […] and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons […] are inapplicable,” and (e) “the fact that the Commission may submit a case to the Court should not be confused in any way with the procedure for individual petitions.” 20. The Commission indicated that, on numerous occasions, it has insisted on the application of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in order to establish the full scope of the State’s responsibility in cases involving the failure to investigate acts of violence against women. When submitting such cases to the Court, the Commission has argued that the Court has competence to rule on the said Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and that the States Parties themselves have accepted this competence, because Article 12 of that Convention refers to the procedures of the system of individual petitions established in the American Convention, which includes the eventual processing of the case before the Court. The Inter-American Court has declared violations of this provision based on the same understanding. The Commission affirmed that there is no reason for the Court to depart from its reiterated opinion, which accords with international law. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare this preliminary objection inadmissible. 21. The representatives indicated that the Court had applied the Convention of Belém do Pará constantly and consistently throughout its case law, thus recognizing its competence to do so. They added that the Peruvian State had not presented any argument that would justify the Court departing from its case law in relation to its competence to rule on violations of the