16 […] to examine non-compliance with the obligations arising from [said] Convention.” The representatives did not offer any arguments on this point. 68. The Court observes that the Vienna Convention requires reference to the preparatory work only in a subsidiary manner. In this case, it would not be necessary, bearing in mind the points examined above. Despite this, the Court will examine the preparatory work in order to respond to the arguments submitted by the State. 69. The “text approved by the majority” during the “Inter-governmental Meeting of Experts” convened in October 1993 to revise the draft of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, indicated the following: Article 15. Any State Party may, at any time and in accordance with the norms and procedures stipulated in the American Convention on Human Rights, declare that it accepts as obligatory, automatically and without any special convention, the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights over all the cases relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention.38 70. On October 26, 1993, the Mexican delegation submitted a proposal concerning the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and of the InterAmerican Commission of Women (hereinafter the “CIM”).39 In particular, Mexico’s proposal was aimed at creating a committee on the elimination of violence against women that would assist the CIM, in the examination of national reports, and that would review claims or complaints regarding the Convention, offering “an opinion on [said complaints] to [the CIM], with a view to lodging the cases before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights.”40 The Brazilian delegation indicated that it “reserved its position” towards said Article 15 of the draft convention.41 71. In addition, one of the documents examined during the VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates that analyzed the draft convention in 1994, includes the comments made by several Governments on such document.42 Trinidad and Tobago supported the Mexican proposal, while Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Uruguay and Venezuela expressed their agreement with the draft convention. Chile submitted observations that were not related to the protection mechanisms. St. Kitts and Nevis “reserv[ed] the right to take a decision on Articles 13 to 15 of the draft convention and on the proposed amendments to it.” Barbados and Dominica stated that they understood that the individual petition process was regulated by the American 38 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Initial Preliminary Text and Last Version of the Draft Text for the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Item 1), OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.9/94, April 13, 1994, p. 16. 39 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, Preliminary Report of the Second Session of the Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts to Consider the Draft Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, OEA/Ser.L/II.7.5 CIM/Recovi/doc.36/93 corr.2, April 14, 1994. See, in particular, Attachment I, Working Group II, Proposed reforms presented by the delegation of Mexico to Articles 13 to 16 of chapter IV of the draft Convention, WG-II/doc. 5/93 October 26, 1993, pp. 12 and 13. 40 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, Attachment I, Working Group II, Proposed reforms presented by the delegation of Mexico to Articles 13 to 16 of chapter IV of the draft Convention, supra note 39, p. 13. 41 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, supra note 38, p. 16. 42 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Comments received from Governments on the Draft Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Item 1), OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.4/94, April 4, 1994.