11 Convention, concluding in the said report that the State had failed to comply with the obligations deriving from the so-called “federal clause” and, consequently, it had alleged the supposed failure to comply with this norm in the application it filed before the Court.22 Furthermore, the State itself, in its arguments on merits in the answer to the application, indicated that the alleged violation of Article 28 was included in Report No. 13/07.23 38. The Court observes that Article 46(1) of the American Convention stipulates the requirements for a petition to be admitted by the Inter-American Commission, and Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission establishes the elements that the petition should include at the time it is presented, Neither article requires the petitioner to specify the articles of the Convention they consider violated. Similarly, Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force at the date the petition was presented (current Article 28(f)) established the possibility of a petition being processed before it, even if no specific reference had been made to the article presumed to have been violated.24 Thus, in its decision on admissibility, the Commission determines the possible violations of the rights embodied in the American Convention based on the facts denounced by the petitioner and on the legal considerations it deems pertinent. 39. The Court finds that the inclusion in the application of the supposed failure to comply with Article 28 of the American Convention, which appeared in the Commission’s Report No. 13/07, is not contrary to the relevant provisions of the American Convention and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Moreover, during the processing of the case before the Court, the State had the opportunity to submit its arguments for the defense on this aspect of the application and has not proved that its right to defense was impaired owing to the said action of the Commission. Thus, the Court finds that there are no elements that would justify modifying a decision by the Inter-American Commission in this case. 40. Moreover, according to Article 62(3) of the Convention, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention, provided that the States parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” Thus from the literal interpretation of this provision, the Court has competence to rule on “the provisions” of the Convention, without any limitation or differentiation such as that mentioned by the State. Consequently, the Court has competence to examine the alleged failure to comply with Article 28 of the Convention, irrespective of its juridical nature, whether it is a general obligation, a right, or a norm of interpretation.25 22 The Commission decided to include in its Report No. 13/07 the alleged violation of the so-called “federal clause” by considering that the State should have: (a) take adequate measures to avoid the death of Sétimo Garibaldi, and (b) provided the family of Mr. Garibaldi with an effective investigation into the facts; the prosecution and punishment of those responsible, and adequate civil compensation. “The failure to act in this way constituted non-compliance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Convention.” Cf. Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 13/07 of March 27, 2007 (file of attachments to the application, tome II, attachment 2, folio 740). 23 Cf. Brief with the answer to the application (merits file, tome II, folio 698). 24 According to Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force on the date of presentation of the petition, complaints submitted to the Commission must include: “the State the petitioner considers responsible, by act or omission, for the violation of any of the human right recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, in the case of States Parties, even if no specific reference is made to the article(s) alleged to have been violated.” The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved at its 49th period of sessions, during session 660, held on April 8, 1980, and modified at its 64th period of sessions, during session 840, held on March 7, 1985, at its 70th period of sessions, during session 938 held on June 29, 1987; at its 90th period of sessions, during session 1282, held on September 21, 1995; at its 92nd period of special sessions, during session 1311 held on May 3, 1996; at its 96th period of special sessions, during session 1354 held on April 25, 1997, and at its 97th period of sessions, during session 1366ª held on October 15, 1997. 25 Cf. Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 26.