19. The representative argued that “the factual framework of the case includes […] the facts that took place on September 26, 1976, when the process constituting the crime of forced disappearance began for the four members of the Julien-Grisonas family.” It pointed out that the forced disappearances of Anatole and Victoria continue, since the document signed on August 2, 1979 by the adoptive parents and the biological grandmother "was intended to establish basic legal status and reflect what was agreed to going forward." However, not only did the children not participate in or know about the agreement, but, in fact, their lives remained unchanged. As for the ICPPT, it argued that torture is not perpetrated or completed instantly, such that, like forced disappearance, it is "a crime of an ongoing nature." 20. The Commission indicated that in the brief submitting the case, it had specified that the facts under judgment were "the actions and omissions of the State that occurred or continued to occur after September 5, 1984," adding that “falling within the competence of the Court are the facts related to the forced disappearance of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite, which continue to this day, the lack of investigation and punishment for the facts of which the brothers Anatole and Victoria were victims, and the lack of adequate reparation.” It asked that the preliminary objection raised be dismissed. A.2. Considerations of the Court 21. The Argentine State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of this Court on September 5, 1984, and in its interpretative declaration indicated that the Court would have jurisdiction with respect to “facts taking place after the ratification” of the American Convention, carried out on that same date. 18 As for the ICPPT, the ratification took place on November 18, 1988 and the ratification instrument was deposited on March 31, 1989. For its part, the ICFDP was ratified by the State on October 31, 1995, and the respective instrument was deposited on February 28, 1996. 22. Based on the foregoing and on the principle of non-retroactivity set forth in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, 19 the Court cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction with respect to acts or facts taking place prior to recognition of its competence or, as the case may be, to the date of entry into force for the State of the treaties whose violation is alleged. 20 23. However, the Court has held that even when the alleged violations stem from prior facts, it may have competence to the extent that there are independent facts that have occurred within its temporal jurisdiction that amount to autonomous and specific violations, as well as regarding facts that are ongoing or permanent, for as long as the violation of the international obligation continues. 21 24. The Court notes that the representative’s reference to the events that took place on September 26, 1976, is related to the alleged forced disappearance of the four members of the Julien Grisonas family. However, in its brief submitting the case, although the Commission drew a general conclusion as to the rights it considered violated, it did distinguish among the Available at: http://cidh.org/Basicos/English/Basic4.Amer.Conv.Ratif.htm Article 28: “Unless 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 which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.” 20 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Brothers v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 66; and Case of Perrone and Preckel v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 19, and Case of Montesinos Mejia v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 18. 21 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 21, and Case of Perrone and Preckel v. Argentina, supra, para. 20. 18 19 9