11 which “do not expressly confer on it the power to determine the compatibility of the acts and the norms of the States, such as the [Convention against Torture].” 30. Should the objection be dismissed, the State requested that the Court elaborate, in a broader manner, on its jurisprudence of the last decade regarding this issue, given that its criterion “is based on facts that are insufficient to determine, with complete certainty, the scope of jurisdiction over the application and interpretation of the [Convention against Torture].” ii. Arguments of the Commission and representatives 31. The Commission recalled that both said organ and the Court have determined the existence of violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, in the understanding that subsection three of Article 8 of the said Convention contains a general clause of acceptance of jurisdiction by the States upon the ratification or adherence of said treaty. Therefore, according to the Commission there are no reasons for the Court to depart from its reiterated opinion, which is in accordance with international law. For their part, the representatives requested that the Court, "in conformity with [its] combined jurisprudence on the issue, reject[ed] the preliminary objection raised by the State of Panama.” b) Decision of the Court 32. Firstly, it is relevant to recall that, regarding the argument put forward by some States that each Inter-American treaty requires a specific declaration granting jurisdiction to the Court, this Tribunal has determined the possibility of exercising its contentious jurisdiction with regard to Inter-American instruments other than the American Convention, when such instruments establish a system of petitions subject to international supervision in the regional sphere.20 In this regard, the special declaration accepting the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, based on Article 62 of the American Convention, allows the Court to examine violations of the Convention as well as other Inter-American instruments that grant it jurisdiction.21 33. Although Article 8 of the Convention against Torture22 does not explicitly mention the Inter-American Court, the Tribunal has referred to its own jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Convention against Torture, using a means of complementary interpretation, such as the working papers, to overcome the possible ambiguity of the provision.23 In this manner, in its judgment in the case of Villagrán Morales et al v. Guatemala, the Tribunal referred to the historic reason of said Article, which is that at the moment of drafting the Convention against Torture some member countries of the Organization of American States were still not parties to the American Convention and indicated that “the possibility of ratifying or adhering to the Convention against Torture was opened to the greatest number of States by means of a general clause [of jurisdiction, which did not make express and exclusive reference to the InterAmerican Court]. What was considered important was to attribute the competence for applying the [Convention against Torture] to an international organ, whether this was 20 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 37. 21 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 20, para. 37. 22 This precept states, regarding the jurisdiction to apply it, that “[a]fter all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State” to which the violation is deemed. 23 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton FieldsCotton Field”), supra note 20, para. 51.