13 other contentious cases against Guatemala, 18 the Court declared the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and does not find elements to justify a departure from its case law. Therefore, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to analyze Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 31. Third, the Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives have asked the Court to declare a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Consequently, the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Court to declare violations of the CPPCG is without merit, and is therefore dismissed. Nevertheless, as in other cases, including against Guatemala, the Court considers it useful and appropriate to interpret the American Convention, taking into account other treaties of international humanitarian law 19 and international criminal law, 20 in view of their relevance to this matter. 21 B.2. Alleged lack of jurisdiction to determine the commission of crimes B.2.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 32. The State argued that “neither the Court nor the Commission can assert that crimes were committed in the instant case [,] since they are not a criminal court and do not have such jurisdiction.” Thus, it asked the Court “not to accuse the State for the commission of crimes.” By way of example, it pointed out that the Commission improperly referred to “homicides, murders, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide […].” 33. The Commission held that “both the [Commission] and the Court have been consistent in indicating that their jurisdiction is not of a criminal nature, but rather involves the monitoring of compliance with the obligations freely assumed by the States Parties.” In addition, it held that the State’s argument does not constitute a preliminary objection inasmuch as it does not seek to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. 34. The representatives argued that “forced disappearance is a violation of human rights […] that falls within the jurisdiction of the Court […] because it constitutes a multiple and continuing violation of numerous rights recognized in the Convention […] and because the acts constituting forced disappearance are permanent in nature as long as the whereabouts of the victim are unknown or his or her remains are not found.” They also asked the Court to declare that of Procedure of the Commission.” In this regard, the Court has pointed out that the wording of Article 12 of the Convention of Belém of Pará “does not exclude any provision of the American Convention; thus, it must be concluded that the Commission will act in petitions on Article 7 of the Convention Belém do Pará pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention, as established in Article 41 thereof. Article 51 of the Convention […] expressly refers to of cases before the Court”. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 41. In similar vein, see Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, footnote 22; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, footnote 5 and Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 19. 18 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 17; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 17; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 36, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, para. 19. 19 See, for example, Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 221, and Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259 para. 187. 20 See also, Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 140; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 93 et seq.; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 99, footnote 113, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 82, footnote 102. 21 See, Article 64 of the American Convention.