17 Convention. Peru considered pertinent a “draft procedure that should be followed before the IACHR” or “the establishment of an ad hoc rapporteur for the specific case of the complaints.” 72. On April 19, 1994, the CIM delegates met to discuss the draft Convention and proceeded to a nominal vote on the different Articles. Twenty-two OAS member countries participated. Regarding draft Article 15, the result of the vote was: “16 votes in favor, one against and four abstentions.”43 The “summary record” of this vote indicated that the Article “was not approved” because “18 votes in favor were required to approve a motion.” The Court observes that it is incorrect to say that a majority was not in favor of approving this Article; it was merely that it did not obtain a sufficient number of votes. 73. Accordingly, inasmuch as it relates to a subsidiary method of interpretation, the preparatory works are completely insufficient to provide solid grounds to reject the interpretation made of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Thus, the Court has used all the principal elements of interpretation of the Vienna Convention. 1.5. Effects of the precedent established in the judgment in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison 74. The State indicated that, in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, the Court “did not analyze its jurisdiction to hear cases relating to the Convention of Belém do Pará”; consequently, “there is no evidence of the grounds on which it exercised its jurisdiction.” In addition, it argued that the fact that, in said case, “no objection was raised to the Court’s jurisdiction and that the Court did not examine this, should not impede the Court from accepting the State’s objection” in the instant case and “declaring its lack of jurisdiction.” 75. In the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, the Court declared that the Convention of Belém do Pará had been violated, which is equivalent to declaring its jurisdiction over that Convention. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that it was not only in this case that it established its jurisdiction in this regard. Indeed, in Ríos et al. v. Venezuela and Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, although the Court declared that “it [was] not correct to analyze the facts of the [said cases] under the […] stipulations of the Convention of Belém do Pará,”44 because it had not been proven that the attacks were “especially addressed against women” or “were based on their condition of being women,”45 such conclusion that no violation had been committed was possible based on an analysis of said Convention, and reveals the Court’s jurisdiction over it. 76. Consequently, although it is true that an exhaustive analysis was not made of the Court’s jurisdiction to examine violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, at the time, it was found unnecessary owing to the absence of a dispute between the parties. In this case, in 43 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Summary of Proceedings of the Second Plenary Session, OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.24/94, rev.1, June 6, 1994. The following countries voted in favor: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay. The only country that voted against was Brazil. Mexico, the United States of America, Canada and Jamaica abstained from voting. 44 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 280, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 296. 45 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 44, para. 279, and Case of Perozo v. Venezuela, supra note 22, paras. 295 and 296.