19 67. The Court considers that the State has not proved how the Commission’s conduct led to an error that specifically affected or violated the State’s right of defense during the proceedings before the Commission. The Court has previously ruled that, according to Article 51 of the Convention and the standards established in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission is competent to determine whether the State has complied with the recommendations contained in its report under Article 50 and to decide whether to submit the case to the Court’s jurisdiction.18 Lastly, the Court considered the State’s arguments about the existence of an effective measure of protection and Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s lack of interest, because he did not present his candidacy during the electoral process, when examining the preliminary objections filed by the State in that respect (supra paras. 36 and 26). Based on the above, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. IV COMPETENCE 68. The Inter-American Court is competent, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear this case because Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. V EVIDENCE a) Documentary and testimonial evidence 69. In addition to the documentary evidence provided, during the public hearing, the Court heard the statement of Mr. Castañeda Gutman who testified on: (a) the facts related to his attempt to be registered as a candidate for the presidency of Mexico in the elections held in 2006; (b) the subsequent judicial proceedings, following the refusal of the Federal Electoral Institute to register his candidacy and the reasons why he had recourse to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and (c) the effects that this impairment of his right caused in the pecuniary and non-pecuniary sphere. b) Assessment of the evidence 70. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.19 71. Likewise, the Court admits the documents provided by the State and the representatives during the public hearing, because it considers them useful for this case and, in addition, neither their authenticity nor their veracity were questioned. 72. Regarding the testimony given by the alleged victim before the Court, the Court considers it pertinent to the extent that it conforms to the purpose defined by the Court in the Order requiring it (supra para. 10). Despite this, the Court considers that Mr. Castañeda 18 19 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 40. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008, paras. 29 and 30; and Cas of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 16.