B. Alleged lack of competence of the Court to examine violations of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance with regard to Ana Rosa Castiblanco B.1) Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 40. Initially, this preliminary objection had been filed with regard to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. In its final written arguments, the State “withdrew this preliminary objection partially” with regard to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, because the Commission had “rectified” the error by which it declared a violation of Article I(a)) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance to the detriment of both victims. However, the State “insist[ed that the Court] is not competent to examine the presumed violation of the obligation to investigate the forced disappearance of persons established in Article I(b)) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance” in relation to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, because the facts relating to Ms. Castiblanco Torres “do not characterize the presumed internationally wrongful act of forced disappearance in light of international human rights law.” The Commission considered “that the State is partially right about the inapplicability [of Article 1.a] of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance […] to the situation of Ana Rosa Castiblanco [Torres] and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas,” but clarified that this Convention is still applicable “as regards the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate forced disappearance.” In addition, it stressed that establishing whether what happened to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres was a forced disappearance is an argument relating to the merits of the case “that in no way affects the Court’s competence.” The representatives argued that “even though [the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance] was ratified after the discovery of the whereabouts of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres (in 2001), and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas (November 8, 1985), the absence of appropriate investigation and punishment extends until the present, so that [the said Convention] is applicable as of the date of its ratification in relation to that aspect of the State’s obligations.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 41. The Court reiterates that, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the authority inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The instruments accepting the optional clause of the compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presume that the States presenting them accept the Court’s right to resolve any dispute concerning its jurisdiction. 43 42. Colombia ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance on April 12, 2005. The State’s arguments on this preliminary objection question the material competence of the Court in relation to this inter-American Convention by affirming that the Court is unable to exercise its contentious jurisdiction to declare a violation of the norms of this international instrument for facts that, according to the State, do not constitute forced disappearance. 43. Article XIII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, in relation to Article 62 of the American Convention, establishes the Court’s authority to examine matters (Protocol II).” Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 114. 43 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 32, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 18. 19