4 Procedure, the parties were subsequently required to present specific information and documentation to be considered as helpful evidence. In February 2007, the Commission, the representatives and the State submitted their briefs with final arguments on the preliminary objection, and possible merits, reparations and costs. Finally, two amici curiae briefs were submitted to the Court. The first was submitted by professor Jo-Marie Burt, on January 22, 2007, and the second by the "Flora Tristan" Peruvian Women's Center (Centro de la Mujer Peruana 'Flora Tristán'), the Aurora Vicar Association (Asociación Aurora Vivar), and the Research and Training Institute for Women and the Family (INCAFAM) (Instituto de Investigación y Capacitación de la Familia y la Mujer) on February 19, 2007. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 9. In the brief answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief, the State filed the preliminary objection of “the lack of competence of the Court to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” The State questioned both the competence ratione materiae and the competence ratione temporis of the Court to apply the said Convention in the instant case. 10. Regarding the alleged lack of competence ratione materiae, the State indicated that “[c]onsidering the importance of the principle of consent in international law, the Court could not apply the Convention [against Torture], since neither Article 25 nor Article 27(1) of the American Convention can be interpreted as provisions that authorize the Court to apply [the said Convention against Torture].” 11. Among its arguments, the Commission cited the Court’s case law and affirmed that the Court “had applied the Convention against Torture on several occasions and had declared the responsibility of several States as a result of its violation.” Likewise, the representatives stated that the “instances [of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights] have competence to hear cases on the application of the Convention against Torture […], in strict observance of Article 8 of that treaty.” 12. The Court reiterates its case law to the effect that it is competent “to interpret and apply the Convention against Torture and to declare the responsibility of a State that has consented to be bound by this Convention and has accepted, also, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”6 Since Peru is a Party to the Convention against 6 The Court has applied the Convention against Torture in the following cases: Case of the Miguel CastroCastro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 266; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 94; Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 162; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C no. 114, para. 159; Case of Blanco-Romero et al v. Venezuela. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 61; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 117 and 156; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C. No. 103, para. 98; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 223; Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 191; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 248 to 252; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C. No. 37, para. 136. In this regard, the relevant part of Article 8 of the Convention against Torture, on competence to apply it, indicates 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.” In its Judgment in Case of Villagrán-Morales et al. (paras. 247 and 248), the Court referred to the historical background to this article and indicated that “[a] general clause [on competence, that did not refer expressly and exclusively to the Inter-American Court,] paved the way to the Convention against Torture being acceded to or ratified by the greatest number of States. What was considered important was to attribute