11 American Commission for them to file their comments thereon. The State requested that said documents be rejected, for having been untimely submitted, and as their submission constitutes “an obvious sample of procedural disloyalty.” The Commission did not file any comments thereon. 52. On this specific matter, the Court decides not to incorporate these documents into the record of the case, since they were submitted untimely, giving no reasons therefor. 53. As the evidentiary items incorporated into the body of evidence of the instant case have been assessed, the Court will proceed to analyze the alleged violations in the instant case, considering the facts which have already been acknowledged and those which may come to be proven,20 included in each chapter as pertinent. Likewise, the Court will consider the parties’ arguments which it deems relevant to analyze, taking into consideration the acknowledgment of facts and claims made by the State. VII AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN 54. The representative requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles I, V, VI, XVII, XVIII, XXV, XXVI, and XXVIII of the American Declaration. 55. In this regard, it is important to take into consideration what has been previously pointed out by the Court, in that “[f]or the Member States of the Organization [of American States], the Declaration is the text that defines the human rights referred to in the Charter.”21 That is, “for these States the American Declaration is a source of international obligations related to the Charter of the Organization.”22 The foregoing considerations are fully applicable to Argentina, as a Member State of the OAS. 56. Notwithstanding, as regards the enforcement of the Declaration, a distinction should be made between the jurisdiction of the Commission and that of the Inter-American Court and, regarding the latter, between its advisory and contentious jurisdiction. 57. As regards the Commission, Articles 1(2)(b) and 20 of its Statute, Article 23, and Chapter III of its Rules of Procedure define the scope of its jurisdiction with regard to the human rights enshrined in the Declaration. 58. Regarding the advisory jurisdiction of the Court, it has already been established that: [i]n view of the fact that the Charter of the Organization and the American Convention are treaties with regard to which the Court has advisory jurisdiction by virtue of Article 64(1), it follows that the Court is authorized, within the framework and limits of its competence, to interpret the American 20 This Judgment does hereinafter contain facts which the Court considers to be proven based on the acknowledgment of facts made by the State, in the order and with the pertinent accuracy regarding the facts described in the application. Some of these facts have been supported with evidentiary items, in which case the footnotes are included on each pertinent page. 21 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 45. 22 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 21, para. 45.