11 that thesis cannot be considered valid since “the nullity of one procedural act results in the nullity of all subsequent procedural acts. 43. The second objection is based on a fundamental error as to the role of the organs - the Commission and the Court - created by the Convention of which the State is a Party. Article 33 of the Convention establishes that [t]he following organs shall have competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to this Convention: a. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [...and] b. 44. the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [...]. Article 62(3) of the Convention provides, in this regard, that [t]he 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 [...] or by a special agreement. 45. The State, in its second preliminary objection, presented arguments concerning the “weakening” or the “de stabilization” of national institutions (supra 35(c)). As to observations of this nature, the Court has already stated that [...] Peru signed and ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, it accepted the treaty obligations set forth in the Convention with respect to all persons subject to its jurisdiction without any discrimination. It is not necessary to state that Peru, like the other States Parties to the Convention, accepted the obligations precisely in the exercise of its sovereignty. On becoming a State Party to the Convention, Peru accepted the competence of the organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and therefore obligated itself, also in the exercise of its sovereignty to participate in proceedings before the Commission and the Court and to assume the obligations that derive from them and from the general application of the Convention. (Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 4, 1998, Series C, No. 41, para’s 101 and 102.) 46. In the two preliminary objections that the Court is considering at this time, the State has made reference to the principle of res judicata. The State argues that the sanction of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Cesti Hurtado “is a result of a judgment that enjoys the authority of res judicata inasmuch as it has been reviewed by a military court of final instance. That judgment is set, irreversible.” (supra 41(b) This argument would lead to the necessary conclusion that it is not possible for the Court to admit and process the application which the Commission has submitted in favor of the alleged victim. 47. The Court recalls that the purpose of International Law of Human Rights is to provide individuals with the means of protection of internationally recognized human rights against the State (its organs, its agents, and all those who act in its name). In international jurisdiction the parties and the matter in controversy are, by definition, different from those in the domestic jurisdiction. In the present case, the fundamental aspect of the controversy before the Court is not whether the alleged victim violated Peruvian law (whether it be civilian or military law), but rather if Peru