before Brazil’s adhesion to the ICPPT. Consequently, the State argued that the two conventions can only be applied with regard to acts or omissions subsequent to their respective ratification. 23. The Commission indicated that, in the letter submitting the case, it had noted that the facts submitted to the Court’s consideration were only those that had occurred after December 10, 1998. In this regard, the Commission considered that the preliminary objections were inadmissible because the time frame over which the Court was able to rule had already been fully delimited pursuant to the principle of non-retroactivity and the Court’s case law on this matter. 24. In addition, it underlined that the violations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture fell within the temporal jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, because they related to the obligation to investigate and to punish acts of torture derived, precisely, from the autonomous violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 25. The representatives indicated that they had not alleged violations based on facts prior to December 10, 1998. They also stressed that the Court had often indicate that it had jurisdiction to examine facts that had initiated prior to the date of acceptance of its jurisdiction if they continued or subsisted after that date. 26. In addition, they argued that the violations based on the failure to investigate and punish the crimes against humanity and the gross human rights violations committed in this case subsisted before and after 1998, and extended up until the present time. Accordingly, they indicated that the facts were characterized as a situation of permanent violation of the obligation to investigate and punish torture. A.2. Considerations of the Court 27. Brazil ratified the ICPPT on July 20, 1989, and the American Convention September 25, 1992. The Court notes that the international obligations resulting from these instruments acquired full legal force as of those dates. However, the Court points out that it was not until December 10, 1998, that Brazil accepted and declared itself subject to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. In its declaration, it indicated that the Court would have jurisdiction with regard to “facts that were subsequent” to this acceptance. 14 Based on this, and on the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court is unable to exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and to declare a violation of its provisions in relation to alleged facts or conducts of the State that occurred prior to this acceptance of jurisdiction. 15 28. Despite the above, the Court has also found that, during an investigation or a judicial proceeding, independent facts may be brought to light that could constitute specific, 14 In its acceptance of jurisdiction of December 10, 1998, Brazil indicated that: “[t]he Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares that it accepts, indefinitely, as obligatory and ipso jure, the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, in all cases related to the interpretation or application of the American Convention [on] Human Rights, pursuant to Article 62 of this instrument, subject to reciprocity, and for facts subsequent to this Declaration.” OAS, Department of International Law. Multilateral Treaties: American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San José” (B-32). Signatories and Ratifications. Available at https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_ american_convention_on_human_rights_sign.htm 15 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 66, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 16. 8