-5appendixes in which they presented “information they considered fundamental” with regard to the “supervening fact of the submission of the executive decree[, presented by the State,” providing for the creation of the Inter-institutional Commission to find the children who disappeared as a result of the armed conflict in El Salvador (supra para. 19). 21. On November 23, 2004, the Court delivered judgment on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra para. 5), in which it decided: Unanimously, 1. To admit the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 73, 78 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to facts or acts that occurred prior to June 6, 1995, the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction with the OAS General Secretariat. By six votes to one, 2. To admit the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 73, 79, 95 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to facts or acts that began prior to June 6, 1995, and which continued after that date on which the State accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Dissenting Judge Cançado Trindade. By six votes to one, 3. To reject the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 84, 85, 93, 94 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and to any other violation whose facts or commencement occurred after June 6, 1995, the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court with the OAS General Secretariat. Dissenting Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello. Unanimously, 4. To reject the preliminary objection entitled “Non-retroactivity of the application of the crime of forced disappearance of persons”, in accordance with the first and second operative paragraphs and paragraphs 78, 79 and 106 of [the] judgment. Unanimously, 5. To reject the second preliminary objection entitled “Lack of jurisdiction rationae materiae,” in accordance with the first and second operative paragraphs and paragraphs 78, 79 and 120 of [the] judgment. Unanimously, 6. To reject the third preliminary objection entitled “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text,” because this is not a true preliminary objection, in accordance with paragraph 127 of [the] judgment. By six votes to one, 7. To reject the fourth preliminary objection filed by the State regarding “failure to exhaust