6 19. On April 23, 2001, the President decided to convene the parties to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on May 30, 2001, to hear their arguments on the preliminary objections. 20. The public hearing was held at the seat of the Court on the specified date. There appeared before the Court: for the Inter-American Commission: Robert K. Goldman, delegate Raquel Poitevien, legal adviser Susana Albanese, assistant Emilio Weinschelbaum, assistant, and Viviana Krsticevic, assistant for the State of Argentina: Andrea G. Gualde, agent, and María Rosa Cilurzo, deputy agent. V COMPETENCE 21. Argentina has been a State party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984. On that day it also accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. In the instant case, the State argues in its objections that the Court is not competent to hear the application based on Article 1(2) of the American Convention and under the terms in which the State accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. In accordance with the rule of the compétence de la compétence/KompetenzKompetenz, established in both the jurisprudence of this Court and in standard, ongoing arbitral and juridical practice6, this Court is competent to hear the instant case. Article 62(3) of the Convention recognizes this rule. Therefore, the Court will now decide on the two objections that were filed. VI FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 22. The first preliminary objection that the Court will analyze and decide on relates to Article 1(2) of the American Convention which states: “For the purposes of this Convention, “person” means every human being.” Based on this text, Argentine maintains that the American Convention is not applicable to legal entities and that the companies of José María Cantos, which have been incorporated under different regimes, are therefore not protected by Article 1(2) of the Convention. 6 Cf. Constantine et al. case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, paras. 69 and 72; Benjamin et al. case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, paras. 70 and 73; Hilaire case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, paras. 78 and 81; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 35; and Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 36; and see also the cases of the “Betsey” (1797) (La Pradelle-Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaux, 2ª. ed., Paris, 1957, t. I, p. 51 and ff.) the “Sally” (1797) (La Pradelle-Politis, op. cit., t. I, p. 127 and ff.) and the “Alabama” (1872) (La Pradelle-Politis, op. cit., t. II, pp. 839, 840, 889 and ff.).