24 99. The State identifies the tenth objection as “sovereignty and jurisdiction.” 100. The Court summarizes as indicated below the arguments of the State and the Commission on this issue: a. The State asserted that, although it would not begin to inquire into the ambiguity of the application, it considers that “there are inherent aspects that make up the sovereignty of States and of individuals that can not be renounced without affecting public order.” On this basis, Peru asserted that it is a sovereign Republic with the full right to pass the necessary laws to repress crimes committed in its territory by nationals or foreigners; that the conviction of the alleged victims took place in accordance with Decree-Laws Nos. 25.659, 25.708, and 25.744, and with the 1993 Constitution in effect at that time, and that “the sovereign decision of the legal organs of Peru cannot be modified much less rendered ineffective by any national, foreign, or international authority.” Finally, it asserted that “criminal offenses committed by nationals and foreigners in Peruvian territory, are sanctioned by the competent courts of the country and that their decisions are final.” b. The Commission stated that the tenth objection is “a combination of the objections presented and considered earlier,” and repeated the arguments it made to the sixth objection. It pointed out that both the Commission and the Court are competent to examine and decide this case, since Peru accepted the jurisdiction of the organs of the Inter-American system with respect to acts that violate the human rights set forth in the American Convention. 101. As regards the tenth and final objection raised by the State, the Court must recall that Peru signed and ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, it accepted the treaty obligations set forth in the Convention with respect to all persons subject to its jurisdiction without any discrimination. It is not necessary to state that Peru, like the other States Parties to the Convention, accepted the obligations precisely in the exercise of its sovereignty. 102. On becoming a State Party to the Convention, Peru accepted the competence of the organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and therefore obligated itself, also in the exercise of its sovereignty, to participate in proceedings before the Commission and the Court and to assume the obligations that derive from them and from the general application of the Convention. 103. If the alleged victims have acted, as Peru asserts, in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention and with the national law to which they are subject, it can result in criminal consequences in accordance with the infractions committed in the case, but it does not relieve the State of the duty to comply with the obligations that it assumed as a State Party to the aforementioned Convention. 104. Consequently, inadmissible. 105. Now, therefore, the Court considers this preliminary objection to be