14 57. On several occasions the Court has declared itself competent to examine, under its contentious competence and in light of Article 2 of the American Convention, the alleged failure to comply with both the positive obligation of the States to adopt the necessary legislative measures to guarantee the exercise of the rights embodied in it, and also the obligations of the State not to enact laws that are contrary to the Convention.20 In the instant case, the arguments in this regard refer to both State obligations. 58. Even though the State defined the offense of forced disappearance in its new Penal Code adopted on May 22, 2007, the Court has competence to examine whether the failure to define it prior to that date may have resulted in an investigation under an inappropriate type of offense and whether the definition is adapted to the provisions of Article III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance. In addition, the Court observes that “the possibility of subsequent reparation under domestic law does not prevent the Commission or the Court from hearing a case […].”21 59. Since the arguments on this point refer to a possible failure by the State to comply with its obligations under the American Convention and the Convention on Forced Disappearance and, since the State has ratified the two conventions, both of which, in their Articles 33 and XIII, respectively, recognize the competence of the Inter-American Court to examine whether they have been complied with, the Court considers that it has competence ratione materiae to rule on these arguments. 60. In addition, on repeated occasions the Court has declared that it can examine, under its contentious competence and not only under its advisory competence, the compatibility of domestic law with the American Convention.22 61. Based on the foregoing (supra para. 48), the Court considers that, as of May 9, 1990, it has competence to rule on the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to adapt Panamanian domestic law to the American Convention, and also to examine the alleged incompatibility between the definition of the offense in the new 2007 Penal Code and the provisions of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, as of March 28, 1996, the date on which this instrument entered into force for the State.23 62. Consequently, the Court rejects this aspect of the preliminary objection filed by the State and considers that it has competence to examine the arguments related to the merits of this case, as indicated in this chapter. 20 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 17, para. 207; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 122, and Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 69. 21 Cf. The Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Perú. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 75. 22 Cf. Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paras. 97 to 99; Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, and Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 72 and 73. See also International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, paras. 40 to 49. 23 Cf. Gómez Palomino v. Perú. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paras. 90 to 110, and Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 91 and 92.