18 which Mexico has questioned this jurisdiction, the Court has explained the reasons that led it to reaffirm its jurisprudence in the matter. * * * 77. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that the combination of the systematic and teleological interpretations, the application of the principle of effectiveness, added to the sufficiency of the literal criterion in this case, allow the Court to ratify its compulsory jurisdiction as regards examining violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 2. The Court’s lack of jurisdiction in relation to Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará 78. The Inter-American Commission did not allege that the Court had contentious jurisdiction with regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. However, the representatives referred to this jurisdiction, taking into account the “direct relationship” of Article 9 with Article 7 of that Convention, based on a “pro personae interpretation” of Article 12 and on the principle of effectiveness. They added that the Court should “consider the two Articles together in order to examine the alleged violations.” 79. The Court finds that the systematic and teleological criteria are insufficient to give them preference over what is clearly indicated by the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, which establishes that the petition system shall relate exclusively to possible violations of Article 7 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court underscores that the principle of the most favorable interpretation cannot be used as a basis for an inexistent normative principle; in this case, the integration of Articles 8 and 9 into the literal meaning of Article 12. And this is despite the fact that the different Articles of the Convention of Belém do Pará may be used to interpret it and other pertinent Inter-American instruments. * * * 80. Based on the foregoing, the Court decides to partially accept the preliminary objection filed by the State and, consequently, to declare that: (a) it has compulsory jurisdiction rationae materiae to examine violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and (b) it does not have compulsory jurisdiction rationae materiae to examine alleged violations of Articles 8 and 9 of this international instrument. V JURISDICTION 81. Under Article 62(3) of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, because Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, the State ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on November 12, 1998.