11 complexity of the phenomenon of internal displacement, which will be analyzed in the merits together with other evidentiary elements. (infra Capítulo IX). 34. Subsequently, the Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the State in relation with Article 22 of the Convention is inadmissible for lack of foundation and because it refers to matters of the merits of the case. B. Preliminary objection of “objection to reach a friendly settlement” 35. The State indicated that on various occasions, it manifested to the petitioners its “good will to reach a friendly settlement […] which was not accepted by [them, and their] negativity […] was always present.” The State added that the Commission “assumed the conciliatory route had been exhausted without making greater attempts,” and that it should have granted the State the opportunity to comply with the recommendations. Therefore, the Commission proposed to the Court “to consider this objection as a means of resolution of the present case.” 36. The Commission pointed out that, during the processing of the case before it, the chance to arrive at a friendly settlement was in the hands of the parties, but that the representatives did not show interest in becoming involved in this process. It added that it was clear that unity between the parties would be difficult, and the Commission proceeded with the analysis of the merits of the case, in accordance with that provided in Article 50(1) of the Convention, in virtue that for the existence of a friendly settlement, willingness between the parties is required, and this did not occur. 37. The representatives argued that such preliminary objection is inadmissible in the means that it does not seek to question the jurisdiction of the Court. On the other hand, it pointed out that the State made no effort to approach the alleged victims until after the issuance of the report of Article 50 of the Convention. 38. The Tribunal has sustained that the “preliminary objection” is where the admissibility of a petition or the jurisdiction of the Court are questioned in order to hear a determined case or any aspect of it, regarding the individual, the matter, the time, or the place.21 39. In the present case, the State objected to the failure to reach a friendly settlement. In this regard, the Tribunal finds that said procedure is not obligatory and an omission to carry it out does not contravene the admissibility or jurisdiction of the Court to resolve the litigation. As a consequence, the Tribunal declares as inadmissible the second preliminary objection imposed by the State. V JURISDICTION 40. The Inter-American Court is competent, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear the present case because Guatemala has been a State Party to the Convention since May 25, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. Also, the State ratified the ICFDP on February 25, 2000. 21 Cf. Case Las Palmeras V. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of 4 of February of 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case Escher et. al. V. Brasil. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 6 of July of 2009, para. 15, and Case Garibaldi V. Brasil, supra note 18, para. 17.