16 Arguments of the Commission 61. Regarding the fourth preliminary objection, the Commission argued that: a) only the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 25, 8 and 1(1) of the American Convention are before the Court in the present case; b) the claims before the Court were admitted and reviewed by the Commission pursuant to the applicable norms and procedures; c) it is neither presumed nor required that petitioners must be versed in law in proceedings before the Commission; and d) the fact that a petitioner does not specifically allege a particular violation does not preclude either the Commission or the Court from considering it on its own, in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia. Arguments of the representatives 62. The representatives did not submit arguments concerning the fourth preliminary objection. The Court’s Assessment 63. The Tribunal affirms that, pursuant to Article 62 of the American Convention, its jurisdiction concerns the interpretation and application of the provisions of that Convention. Consequently, although the Court generally takes into consideration the provisions of the American Declaration in its interpretation of the American Convention, the Commission’s conclusions regarding specific violations of the American Declaration do not pertain to the instant proceedings.8 Furthermore, the Commission’s assessment with respect to alleged violations of the American Convention is not binding upon the Court. 64. Therefore, the Court dismisses the State’s fourth preliminary objection. FIFTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION The Commission “neglected to send all pertinent parts of the petition to the State, as intended in Article 42 of its Rules of Procedure” Arguments of the State 65. With respect to the fifth preliminary objection, the State contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case because the Commission neglected to send “all pertinent parts” of the petition – namely, “a number of attachments” – to the State, “as intended in Article 42 of its Regulations.” Furthermore, the State considered that said attachments are of the “utmost importance” in deciding the instant case, and, as a result, its defense was compromised. 8 Cf. Article 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights; and 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. 36.