8 29. On August 4, 1999, the Minister and Counselor of the Embassy of Peru in Costa Rica appeared at the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court and stated that they were returning the application in the Ivcher Bronstein case and its appendices. The Secretariat made a record of these documents’ return. 30. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978. In its instrument of ratification of the Convention, the Government noted that the Convention had been approved by Decree Law No. 22,231, of July 11, 1978, and had become State law. On the honor of the Republic, it pledged to abide by the Convention. On January 21, 1981, Peru recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court as follows: [a]s prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article 62 of the American Convention, the Government of Peru hereby declares that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention. This recognition of jurisdiction is for an unspecified period and on condition of reciprocity. 31. Exercising its jurisdiction, the Court took cognizance of the Ivcher Bronstein case on March 31, 1999, the date on which it formally received the corresponding application, filed in accordance with articles 48, 50, and 51 of the Convention and Article 32 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. B. LAW: 32. The Court must settle the question of Peru’s purported withdrawal of its declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court and of its legal effects. The Inter-American Court, as with any court or tribunal, has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). 33. The Court cannot abdicate this prerogative, as it is a duty that the Convention imposes upon the it, requiring it to exercise its functions in accordance with Article 62(3) thereof. That provision reads as follows: The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement. 34. The jurisdiction of the Court cannot be contingent upon events extraneous to its own actions. The instruments consenting to the optional clause concerning recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presuppose that the States submitting them accept the Court’s right to settle any controversy relative to its jurisdiction. An objection or any other action taken by the State for the purpose of somehow affecting the Court’s jurisdiction has no consequence whatever, as the Court retains the compétence de la compétence, as it is master of its own jurisdiction. 35. Interpreting the Convention in accordance with its object and purpose (cf., infra 39), the Court must act in a manner that preserves the integrity of the