7 in the oral criminal proceeding before against former president Fujimori for the alleged commission of several crimes, to the detriment of the persons named in the intake logbooks of the SIE and they also participated in the processing of the investigation against Vladimiro Montesino et al. 19. Under such terms, the Court notes that there is no controversy as to the decision made by the Commission in its report Nº 85/07, since the formal filing of the complaint mentioned by the State occurred after the approval of such report and on the same day that the State filed its answer to the application in this case. In this regard, the other complaint and the corresponding opening of an investigation, after more than 15 years of the alleged forced disappearance, cannot be validly alleged by the State, insofar as such fact could precisely confirm that the alleged victims had no access to effective remedies in the instant case, as has been considered by the Commission in the Report on admissibility and merits. The analysis of the foregoing would correspond to the merits of the case and the Tribunal finds no grounds to depart from what was decided by the Commission in its Report. Based on these reasons, the Court deems that the preliminary objection raised by the Stat is groundless, and should be declared inadmissible. IV COMPETENCE 20. The Court has jurisdiction over this case, in accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given the fact that Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Besides, Peru ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 13, 2002. V EVIDENCE 21. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court's case-law regarding the evidence and assessment thereof,9 the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the different procedural stages, as well as the affidavits presented and those rendered during the public hearing. A) Documentary, Testimonial and Experts‘Opinion Evidence 22. The Court received the affidavits rendered by the following alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses: a) 9 Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro, proposed by the representatives, brother of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro and alleged victim in the instant case. His Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 154, paras. 67, 68 and 69; and Case of Servellón García et al. V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34.