12 a commission, a committee, an existing tribunal or one that would be created in the future.”24 34. In relation to this issue, it is necessary to emphasize that the system of international protection must be understood as an integral whole, a principle contemplated in Article 29 of the American Convention, which provides a framework of the protection that always gives the priority to the interpretation or the norm that better protects the rights of the human being, which is the main objective of the Inter-American System. To this end, the adoption of a restrictive interpretation as to the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction would not only be contrary to the purpose and end of the Convention, but it would also affect the effective application of the treaty and of the guarantee of protection that it provides, with negative consequences for the alleged victim in the exercise of his right to access to justice.25 35. Based on previous considerations, the Court recalls its constant jurisprudence26 which states that it is competent to interpret and apply the Convention against Torture and declare the responsibility of a State that has given its consent to be bound to this Convention and has accepted, in addition, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In this understanding, the Tribunal has already had the opportunity to apply the Convention against Torture and to declare the responsibility of various States in view of the violation.27 Given that Panama is a party to the Convention against Torture and has acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of this Tribunal (infra Chapter V), the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to rule, in this case, on the alleged responsibility of the State for the violation of said treaty, which was in force at the time of the events. 24 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 247 and 248, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, footnote 6. 25 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 24. 26 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 24, paras. 247 and 248; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 20, para. 51; Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 20, para. 34, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 24, footnote 6. 27 The Court has applied the Convention against Torture in the following cases: Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 136; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 248 to 252; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 185 and 186; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paras. 218 and 219; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 98; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 117 and 156; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159; Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54; Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 61; Case of Baldeón García v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 162; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 86; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 266; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, footnote 6; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 53; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 89; Case of The Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 54; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 51; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 131, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216; para. 131.