obligations when analyzing operations carried out by the armed forces in contexts of armed conflict.13 Consequently, it considered that the State’s claims were inadmissible. 20. The representatives argued that the objections filed by the State should be rejected because they constituted arguments on merits aimed at denying the State’s international responsibility in relation to facts that it inappropriately presented as supervening (infra para. 148). Regarding the first objection, they added to the observations made by the Commission “that studying, analyzing and interpreting the normative framework of international humanitarian law as a complement to international human rights law is an effective formula to decide this case, which undoubtedly represents and develops aspects that need to be dealt with as part of inter-American public order.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 21. Regarding the first preliminary objection filed by the State, the Court reiterates that the American Convention is an international treaty under which the States Parties undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure the exercise of such rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, and that the Court is competent to decide whether any State act or omission, in times of peace or armed conflict is compatible with the American Convention. In addition, the Court indicated that, in this activity, the Court has no normative limit and that any legal norm may be submitted to this examination of compatibility.14 22. In addition, the Court recalls that several judgments delivered in the context of its contentious competence refer to acts that occurred during non-international armed conflicts.15 The American Convention does not establish limitations to the Court’s competence to hear cases in situations of armed conflict.16 23. Similarly, with regard to the application of international humanitarian law, the Court has indicated on other occasions that although “the Court lacks competence to declare that a State is internationally responsible for the violation of international treaties that do not attribute the said competence to it, it may observe that certain acts or omissions that violate human rights under the treaties that it is competent to apply also violate other international instruments that protect the individual, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and especially their common Article 3.”17 In addition, in the case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, the Court indicated, in particular, that the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions could be taken into account as elements for the 13 Thus, the Commission underlined that the organs of the inter-American system have followed the consistent practice of taking into consideration other international instruments that have not attributed competence to them, in order to establish the scope and content of the Convention’s provisions. Similarly, the Commission argued that, on several occasions, the Court has referred to principles of international humanitarian law merely in order to guide the decision of whether the State in question incurred in a violation of the American Convention. Brief with the Commission’s observations. 14 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32. 15 See, among others: Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105; Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 232; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C. No. 252, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134. 16 To the contrary, the same Article 27 of the American Convention contemplates situations in which the States may legitimately suspend the obligations undertaken under this Convention, “in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party,” provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve the rights set out in Article 27(2) of the Convention. 17 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 208. ‐ 10 ‐