III JURISDICTION 16. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention because Bolivia has been a State Party to this instrument since July 19, 1979, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. In addition, Bolivia deposited the instrument ratifying the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on November 21, 2006, and the instrument ratifying the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem do Pará) on December 5, 1994. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 17. The State filed two preliminary objections. First, it filed the objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter also “ICPPT”). Second, it filed the objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione personae owing to the inclusion in the Merits Report of the names of six individuals who did not appear in the proceedings as alleged victims. However, the arguments submitted under the second objection do not correspond to a preliminary objection and will therefore be examined in the section on preliminary considerations (infra paras. 24 to 31). A. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 18. The State alleged that Bolivia had ratified the ICPPT on June 27, 2006,10 and it was not in force at the time of the facts of this case; nevertheless, the Convention came into effect immediately on ratification. It added that the guarantees of due process were not violated during the investigations into the facts of the case; therefore, it had not violated its obligation to investigate. Consequently, it considered that the Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the State’s obligations in relation to the ICPPT. 19. The inter-American public defenders underlined that, as indicated by the State, the ICPPT, just as any other international treaty, was not applicable retroactively. However, they considered that violations of the ICPPT existed that were subsequent to its entry into force, particularly related to the fact that the State had not exercised due diligence when investigating the complaints of torture. They added that the Court had jurisdiction to examine possible violations of the duty of due diligence during the domestic investigation of the complaints of torture, even if the alleged torture had occurred before the entry into force of the treaty. They stressed that the compatibility of the investigation conducted by the State with the standards arising from the ICPPT was a matter that related to the merits of the case and, due to its nature, was not a preliminary matter. Lastly, they asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection ratione temporis. 20. The representatives Jemio Mendoza and Machicao Hidalgo indicated that the investigation into the acts of torture that occurred starting on December 21, 2001, began in 2010, four years after the ICPPT entered into force for Bolivia; therefore, they considered that the Convention was not being applied retroactively. They emphasized that the State had acknowledged that, more than 11 years after the investigation had begun, no judgment had been 10 According to the OAS Secretariat, Bolivia ratified the ICCPT on August 26, 2006, and deposited the instrument of ratification on November 21, 2006. 7