9 c) the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention is related to acts and omissions occurring in 1992, when the “Amnesty Act 1989” was enacted, and in 1993, when State agents allegedly invoked the “Amnesty Act 1989” as grounds for discontinuing the preliminary investigation into the massacre at Moiwana Village; d) the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention are associated with the massacre itself and are of a continuing nature, “and are also distinct and cumulative violations connected with the denial of justice and other acts and omissions that post-date the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction”; e) the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention is of a continuing nature and therefore attributable to Suriname subsequent to its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction; and f) whereas the alleged violations that were completed on November 29, 1986 are not before the Court, the massacre constitutes a grave and systematic violation of a series of fundamental norms of international law that are nonetheless highly relevant to determining the nature and extent of Suriname’s responsibility for the denial of justice under the American Convention, as well as the nature and extent of the measures required to remedy those violations. The Court’s Assessment 37. The State’s central defense in the case sub judice consists in its rejection of the Court’s ratione temporis jurisdiction. Suriname contends that the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives originate in events that occurred in November of 1986, one year prior to its accession to the American Convention and its recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. According to the State, therefore, the terms of its international responsibility during 1986 would be defined exclusively by the American Declaration, thus prohibiting the Court from exercising jurisdiction in the instant case. Similarly, the State maintains that any violation declared by the Tribunal with regard to the facts at issue would necessarily require an ex post facto application of the Convention. 38. As indicated previously, on November 12, 1987 Suriname recognized the competence of the Court (supra paragraph 4), pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, without any express limitations. Thus, the State recognized as binding and as not requiring any special agreement the Court’s jurisdiction on all matters relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention. In light of the nature of the present preliminary objection, it is necessary to refer to Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969,1 which provides: [u]nless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact 1 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 64; Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo-Dodd. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 68; and Case of Cantos. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 35.