9 Convention of Belém do Pará, and asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the Peruvian State. A.2. Considerations of the Court 22. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará) on June 4, 1996, without reservations or restrictions (supra para. 18). Article 12 of this treaty refers to the possibility of lodging “petitions” with the Commission relating to “denunciations or complaints of violations of [its] Article 7,” establishing that “the Commission shall consider such claims in accordance with the norms and procedures established by the American Convention on Human Rights and in the Statute and Regulations of the […] Commission.” As the Court indicated in the cases of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, and Véliz Franco v. Guatemala, “it would appear clear that the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará grants competence to the Court, by not excepting from its application any of the procedural norms and requirements for individual communications.” 5 It is worth noting that, in other contentious cases against Peru, 6 the Court has declared the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. In those cases, the State did not contest the Court’s material competence to examine violations of that Convention. The Court does not find that there is any factor that would justify departing from its case law. 23. Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of its lack of competence ratione materiae in this case with regard to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. B) Preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione temporis with regard to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 24. The State argued the Inter-American Court’s lack of competence ratione temporis to examine the presumed violations of the Convention of Belém do Pará based on events that had occurred between 1993 and the date of ratification of that treaty relating to the presumed lack of activity in the investigation into the acts that had allegedly constituted violence against women. It also affirmed that the said Convention is not applicable in this case as regards the alleged acts of torture and rape, because the alleged acts took place in 1993, and Peru ratified this instrument on June 4, 1996. Thus, when the acts occurred, the Peruvian State was not a party to that treaty, so that this was not in force under its laws. Peru clarified that “this objection refers only to the acts of torture and rape alleged by Gladys Carol Espinoza that took place in 1993, but not to the obligation to investigate that has arisen concurrently to the obligation contained in the American Convention […] as of the date on which the State ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará. Consequently, the objection also includes the possible omissions in the investigations in which the State could have incurred between the date of the facts and June 3, 1996, under this instrument.” 5 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 41. In that judgment, the Court explained that the “wording” of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém de Pará “does not exclude any provision of the American Convention, so that it must be concluded that the Commission will act in the case of petitions relating to Article 7 of the Convention Belém do Pará ‘pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 to 51 of [the American Convention]’, as established in Article 41 of this Convention. Article 51 of the Convention […] refers […] expressly to the submission of cases to the Court.” Similarly, see, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 36. 6 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275.