12 33. The Court would cite its earlier judgment of a case involving Argentina, 28 when it said, “[f]or the member states of the Organization [of American States], the Declaration is the text that defines the human rights referred to in the Charter.” 29 That is to say, “the American Declaration is for these States a source of international obligations related to the Charter of the Organization.”30 This is fully applicable to Argentina as a Member State of the OAS. 34. However, the matter of applying the Declaration underscores a distinction between the role of the Inter-American Commission and that of the Inter-American Court, and in the case of the Court, between its two jurisdictions: advisory and contentious. 35. In the case of the Commission, articles 1(2)(b) and 20 of its Statute and article 23 and Chapter III of its Rules of Procedure specify the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding the human rights articulated in the Declaration. 36. It has already been established that the Court is well within the framework and boundaries of its advisory jurisdiction to interpret the American Declaration and render an advisory opinion on it, whenever the interpretation of these instruments so requires. 31 37. Finally, within its contentious jurisdiction, “the Court generally takes into consideration the provisions of the American Declaration in its interpretation of the American Convention,” 32 but [f]or the States Parties to the Convention, the specific source of their obligations with respect to the protection of human rights is, in principle, the Convention itself. It must be remembered, however, that, given the provisions of Article 29(d), these States cannot escape the obligations they have as members of the OAS under the Declaration, notwithstanding the fact that the Convention is the governing instrument for the States Parties thereto.33 38. Therefore, this Court deems admissible the preliminary objection lodged by the State. Nevertheless, the Court holds that it can apply the American Declaration in the instant contentious case if it deems such to be timely and consistent with the Declaration's binding force, as it interprets the articles of the American Convention that are claimed to have been breached. C. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies C.1 Arguments by the State, the Commission and the representatives 39. The State claimed that the alleged victims had access to, but opted not to exercise, a joint suit for damages and redress against the State under the terms of article 330 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code based on the extra-contractual liability addressed in articles 28 Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, par. 55 to 60. 29 Cfr. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, par. 45. 30 Cfr. Advisory opinion OC-10/89, par. 45. 31 Cfr. Advisory opinion OC-10/89, par. 44. 32 Cfr. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 63, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, par. 59. 33 Cfr. Advisory opinion OC-10/89, par. 46.