IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 18. In its answering brief, the State filed nine preliminary objections with regard to: (a) Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis over facts prior to the acceptances of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court; (b) Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis over facts prior to its adhesion to the American Convention; (c) Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae in relation to supposed violations of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (ICPPT); (d) Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis over facts prior to the entry into force of the ICPPT for the Brazilian State; (e) Non-compliance with the time limit for lodging the petition before the Commission with regard to alleged violations of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention and Article 8 of the ICPPT; (f) Failure to exhaust domestic remedies to obtain pecuniary reparation for the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and reparations of any nature for the alleged violation of Article 5(1) of this instrument; (g) Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae to review domestic decisions on possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (“fourth instance” objection); (h) Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine facts other than those submitted by the Commission, and (i) Failure to abide by the Convention due to the Commission’s publication of the Merits Report. 19. For the sake of procedural economy, the Court will examine the three preliminary objections filed by the State that refer to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis together, because they refer to circumstances that are interrelated and require the examination of similar arguments. A. Preliminary objections regarding the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis A.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 20. The State indicated that it had formalized its adhesion to the American Convention by the issue of a decree on November 6, 1992, and that it had accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. It also indicated that there were two types of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and each one had different temporal effects. The first prevented the Court from examining instantaneous acts that occurred prior to its jurisdiction, but allowed it to examine continuing violations. Meanwhile, the second referred to acceptance with temporal limitations, and did not allow the Court to declare responsibility for continuing acts, but only for subsequent and independent violations. 21. The State argued that, by virtue of the principle of non-retroactivity that governs treaty law, violations of a continuing nature, initiated before the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, differed from instantaneous violations that did not continue over time. According to Brazil’s representatives, the criminal proceedings instituted before December 10, 1998, even if they were still underway, could not generate international responsibility because the facts that would result in the State’s responsibility occurred prior to its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. According to the State, if the Court accepted the case, it would be considering that it had jurisdiction to examine any act based on a supposed denial of justice. 22. Furthermore, regarding its adhesion to the American Convention, the State indicated that this had occurred on September 25, 1992. Accordingly, the Court should acknowledge its lack of temporal jurisdiction to examine facts that occurred before that date. The State also indicated that it had ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (ICPPT) on July 20, 1989, and that the facts relating to Vladimir Herzog occurred in 1975, 7