Commission submitted their observations on the helpful documents and explanations provided by the State in response to the requests of the acting President (supra para. 12). 14. Report on disbursements from the Assistance Fund. On September 20, 2013, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, forwarded information to the State on the disbursements made in application of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, as established in article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the said fund, granted it a time frame for presenting any observations it deemed pertinent. On September 27, 2013, the State presented its observations in this regard. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 15. The State argued that “the facts alleged by Ms. J. commenced on April 13, 1992; in other words, before the Peruvian State had ratified [the Convention of Belém do Pará, on June 4, 1996,] and […] before the date that it was adopted by the States parties.” It therefore asserted that “they should remain outside the Court’s jurisdiction.” The State also indicated that, in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison case, the Inter-American Court had established that, as of June 4, 1996, Peru should have observed the provisions of Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, “which obliges it to act with due diligence to investigate and punish the said violence.” 16. The representative argued that “[t]he substantive rights (and, consequently, the obligations) established in the Convention [of Belém do Pará] were already included in the American Convention.” She also indicated that “[t]he violation of article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in the instant case relates to the conducts of the State that occurred after the Peruvian State had ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará.” 17. Meanwhile, the Commission indicated that “the obligation to investigate that arises from [acts of rape], continues over time. At the time the State of Peru ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará, the obligation to investigate and the failure to respond adequately to this obligation had already arisen, and it subsisted following that date.” The Commission indicated that “[t]his approach is consistent with the case law of the Inter-American Court,” including in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison.” B) Considerations of the Court 18. This Court notes that, as any 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 accepting the optional clause on the binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presuppose the acceptance by the States presenting them of the Court’s right to decide any dispute relating to its jurisdiction. 12 representative had failed to justify why the explanations and evidence provided on November 19, 2013, had not been presented with her motions and arguments brief, or at any of the subsequent procedural opportunities granted by the Court or its acting President to provide helpful information on the laws applicable to this specific case. He also found that the explanations and evidence provided by the representative did not constitute simple observations on the documentation provided by the State and, therefore, had not been requested by the acting President and was not contemplated in the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Given that the possibility of presenting observations does not constitute a new procedural opportunity to expand arguments, on the instructions of the acting President, the representative was advised that the arguments on merits and the evidence provided on November 19, 2013, were inadmissible. 12 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 16 and 17, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 35. 8