the norms and procedures established by the American Convention on Human Rights .. . for lodging and considering petitions ... " meant that the InterAmerican Commission was not precluded from transmitting such cases to the Court in accordance with Articles 44 to 51 of the American Convention. The Court determined that the "literal meaning of Article 12 of the Convention of Belem do Para grants the Court jurisdiction, by not excepting from its application any of the procedural requirements for individual communications". 75. The above seems to suggest that inter-American instruments which confer jurisdiction on the Inter-American Commission do likewise for the Court. Considering that there are a number of inter-American instruments which nevertheless confer express concurrent jurisdiction to both treaty bodies, such as the Protocol of San Salvador30, the above interpretation may not be strictly "literal" as otherwise categorised. Nevertheless, the above serves as useful precedence for a contextual reading of complimentary instruments regulating the role of complementary bodies. 76. The Commission draws further inspiration from the Inter-American Court in the above case, which disting1;1-ished three kinds 9f treaties. Namely, treaties which do not establish a petition system, treaties which establish a petition system for specific substantive provisions, and treaties which establish a comprehensive petition system. The Inter-American Court held "that the jurisdiction that the American Convention confers on the Court ensures that, when a petition system has been established, a guarantee exists that, if appropriate, the Court will exercise judicial control of the matter" 31 . 77. In our context, the Kampala Convention32 falls under the first category as it does not establish a petition system for alleged violations of its substantive provisions in contrast to the third category of treaties, including the Maputo Protocol, where parties are permitted to submit petitions with respect to the entirety of substantive provisions. Notably, the African human rights system does not contain the second category of treaties mentioned above. This Commission considers that like the Inter-American Court, where a treaty adopted as a supplement to the Charter provides a complaints mechanism, a guarantee exists that the Commission as the premier human rights institution on the continent and the organ initially tasked with the supervision of the Charter, exercises judicial control over such supplementary treaties unless expressly prohibited. Moreover, it is highly unusual for treaty bodes with original contentious jurisdiction over a parent treaty to lack said jurisdiction 30 31 Art icle 6 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Econ~~<2:__I and Cultural Rights (''Protocol of San Salvador"), 16 November 1999, A-52 . o" Hu~, 4 ~:---:. Id, para 57 . 32 Afric an Union Con vention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Per b:-:,;:; / / s'~ cRfT 11R ,i,o Ii.::,"' s'-'-<1,. \ 1 ' \~ii~-'(i ,i ~ "01y 1;,'? •I•~ "-~ ( ~b 4 rli'ICAtNI:- O _;_~