13 of this on those occasions. The Court also notes that the said arguments were related to the factual framework considered in the Admissibility Report. In addition, before the Court, the State has been made aware of this information and was accorded the right to defend itself. 31. Consequently, the Court finds that the presumed victims in this case are María Isabel Veliz Franco, Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, José Roberto Franco, Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco de Franco and Roberto Franco Pérez. IV COMPETENCE 32. The Inter-American Court is competent, under Article 62(3) of the American Convention, to hear this case, because Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. Furthermore, Guatemala has been a party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since April 4, 1995. The State’s objections to the Court’s competence in relation to that treaty are analyzed in the following chapter. V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF LACK OF COMPETENCE AND FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES A. Preliminary objection of lack of material competence in relation to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará20 A.1) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 33. The State affirmed that, “taking into consideration the reservations that [Guatemala] made when […] accepting […] the contentious jurisdiction” of the Court,21 the latter is competent to hear the case concerning the “presumed violations that have been alleged to the rights protected by the American Convention.” “However, […it] does not recognize the competence” of the Court “to examine the supposed violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” It indicated that Article 62 of the American Convention “defines the competence of the Court in relation to cases concerning the interpretation or application of [the said] Convention.” It also indicated that “[a]lthough Article 12 of the ‘Convention of Belém do Pará’” establishes the possibility that anyone “may lodge petitions with the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights containing denunciations or complaints of violations of Article 7 of this Convention by a State Party,” this does not mean that the Court has competence ratione materiae to examine […] complaints based on [that treaty],” because “neither the good faith of the States, nor the justifiable object and purpose of the numerous by the State’s brief received by the Commission on August 24, 2009 (file before the Commission, tome 3, fs. 2109, 2110, 2260 to 2269, 2133 to 2138, and 2107 to 2113, respectively). 20 Even though the State did not expressly mention that its argument on lack of competence was a “preliminary objection,” that is indeed its nature. And this is because this argument clearly reveals that Guatemala seeks an objective that, as the Court has indicated, is in keeping the nature of a preliminary objection: “to obtain a decision that prevents or impedes the analysis of the merits of the contested aspect.” Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 11. As revealed by the Court’s case law, in order to consider whether or not an argument is a preliminary objection, the relevant aspect is that it has been clearly filed with this objective. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 56. 21 In is argument, the State did not elaborate on how, in its opinion, “reservations should be considered” in relation to its position on the lack of material competence. The Court notes that, when ratifying the American Convention, the State made a reservation with regard to the death penalty, which was withdrawn by Governmental Decision No. 281-86, of May 20, 1986. Evidently, this has no impact on the case sub examine. Also, Guatemala made no declarations or reservations when ratifying the Convention of Belém do Pará.