10 [...] Consequently, the alleged violations of the right to life committed in a context of internal armed conflict may not always be resolved by the Commission, solely by invoking Article 4 of the American Convention. The American Convention does not expressly remit to international humanitarian law under these circumstances; however, in view of the status of this branch of international law and its recognized interrelation and complementarity with human rights, it is evident that this is not a deliberate omission, but rather an omission that affects a fundamental right that may not be suspended. [...] The Commission considers that, in this case, its conclusion regarding the violation of Article 4, in a way which is coextensive with the common Article 3, not only does not exceed its competence, but rather constitutes part of its mandate as an organ entrusted with ensuring observance of the fundamental human rights under the jurisdiction of the States Parties. This determination is based on the application of a universally ratified conventional law that codifies general international law. [...] The Commission considers that the conclusions [...] with regard to this norm of international humanitarian law, in relation to Article 4 of the Convention in the instant case, entail a justified pro-active interpretation of the mandate of the organs of the system, consistent with the purpose and goal of international human rights law and, at the same time, essentially respectful of the rule of consent and the importance of existing norms of international law. Lastly, the Commission deemed that the objection filed by Colombia was not a jurisdictional objection and that the question was related to the de facto and de jure determination of the merits of the case. 32. The American Convention is an international treaty according to which States Parties are obliged to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in it and to guarantee their exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. The Convention provides for the existence of the Inter-American Court to hear “all cases concerning the interpretation and application” of its provisions (Article 62.3). When a State is a Party to the American Convention and has accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may examine the conduct of the State to determine whether it conforms to the provisions of the Convention, even when the issue may have been definitively resolved by the domestic legal system. The Court is also competent to determine whether any norm of domestic or international law applied by a State, in times of peace or armed conflict, is compatible or not with the American Convention. In this activity, the Court has no normative limitation: any legal norm may be submitted to this examination of compatibility. 33. In order to carry out this examination, the Court interprets the norm in question and analyzes it in the light of the provisions of the Convention. The result of this operation will always be an opinion in which the Court will say whether or not that norm or that fact is compatible with the American Convention. The latter has only given the Court competence to determine whether the acts or the norms of the States are compatible with the Convention itself, and not with the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Therefore, the Court decides to admit the third preliminary objection filed by the State.