11 38. Consequently, the Court must examine how jurisdiction is established for processing petitions under the Convention of Belém do Pará. The pertinent Articles of this instrument indicate the following: CHAPTER IV. INTER-AMERICAN MECHANISMS OF PROTECTION Article 10. In order to protect the right of every woman to be free from violence, the States Parties shall include in their national reports to the Inter-American Commission of Women information on measures adopted to prevent and prohibit violence against women, and to assist women affected by violence, as well as on any difficulties they observe in applying those measures, and the factors that contribute to violence against women. Article 11. The States Parties to this Convention and the Inter-American Commission of Women may request of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights advisory opinions on the interpretation of this Convention Article 12. Any person or group of persons, or any non-governmental entity legally recognized in one or more member States of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights containing denunciations or complaints of violations of Article 7 of this Convention by a State Party, and the Commission shall consider such claims in accordance with the norms and procedures established by the American Convention on Human Rights and the Statute and Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for lodging and considering petitions. 39. The State indicated that said Article 12 “refers expressly and exclusively to the Inter-American Commission as the organ responsible for the safeguard of the Convention through the procedure of individual petitions,” which “leaves no room for doubt” and leads to the conclusion that the Court “lacks jurisdiction” to examine violations of this instrument. It explained that “[i]f the intention of the States […] had been to grant jurisdiction to the Court, not only would they have indicated this [expressly] but, in addition to mentioning the American Convention, the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, they would necessarily have also included the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Court.” 40. The Court considers that the State’s allegations are incorrect. The Convention of Belém do Pará establishes that the Commission will consider petitions under its Article 7, “in accordance with the norms and procedures established by the American Convention […] and the Statute and Regulations of the Inter-American Commission […] for lodging and considering petitions.” This wording does not exclude any provision of the American Convention, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Commission will take action on petitions under Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará “under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of [the American Convention],” as established in Article 41 of that Convention. Article 51 of the Convention and Article 44 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure refer expressly to the submission of cases to the Court when a State has failed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report on merits referred to in Article 50 of the American Convention. Furthermore, Article 19(b) of the Commission’s Statute establishes that the Commission’s powers include: “to appear before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases provided for in the Convention.” 41. In brief, it appears clear that the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará grants the Court jurisdiction, by not excepting from its application any of the procedural requirements for individual communications. 42. Nevertheless, although the text appears literally clear, it must be analyzed applying all the elements that comprise the rule of interpretation of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention (supra para. 32). The Court has also stated this when indicating that the “usual meaning” of the terms cannot be a rule in itself, but should be examined in the context and, especially, from the perspective of the object and