-25b) according to the “doctrine of one’s own acts” “it is legally and procedurally inadmissible […] that a party to a case seeks to support its actions by invoking factual and legal grounds which oppose its own acts, assuming a position which contradicts its legally relevant previous conduct”. Considerations of the Court 132. Peru raised an objection before the Court on the grounds of the “lack of legal standing of the complainants to act”, basing its arguments on two main points: the legal standing to file a complaint before the Commission and the representation of the alleged victims by the Asociación Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima (Lima Municipal Workers Union Association). 133. Article 44 of the Convention provides that [a]ny person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party. 134. Article 23 (Participation of the alleged victims) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides that: 1. When the application has been admitted, the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives may submit their briefs containing pleadings, motions, and evidence autonomously, throughout the proceedings. 2. When there are several alleged victims, next of kin or duly accredited representatives, they shall designate a common intervener who shall be the only person authorized to file briefs containing pleadings, motions and evidence during the proceedings, including the public hearings. 3. In case of disagreement, the Court shall make the appropriate ruling. 135. The scope of the provisions in the foregoing Articles of the American Convention and of the Rules of Procedure should be construed by the Court in accordance with the object and purpose of such treaty, which is the protection of human rights6 and in accordance with the principle of the effectiveness (effete utile) of legal rules.7 136. As to the filing of the complaint before the Commission, the Court has noted that the petitioners were the Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima (Lima Municipal Workers Union), the Federación de Trabajadores Municipales del Perú (FETRAMUNP) (Municipal Workers Federation of Peru) and the Comité de Despedidos de la Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima – ESMLL (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation Dismissed Workers Committee). 6 Cf. Case of YATAMA v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 84; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 178; and Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 173. 7 Cf. Case of YATAMA v. Nicaragua, supra note 6, para. 84; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Comments. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, supra note 2, para. 69; and Case of Baena-Ricardo et al (270 workers v. Panama). Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 66.