III JURISDICTION 12. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to the provisions of Article 62(3) of the American Convention because Guatemala has been a State Party to this instrument since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. In addition, it deposited the instrument ratifying the ICFDP on February 25, 2000. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RATIONE TEMPORIS 13. The State filed a preliminary objection in which it argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the events that occurred on April 28 and 29, 1982, because Guatemala only accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. It added that the June 14, 2005, acknowledgement of responsibility for the events that took place on April 29 and 30, 1982, did not authorize the Court to examine the facts submitted to the Court, because “that acknowledgement and the jurisdiction of this organ are different matters,” and that the acknowledgement of international responsibility “does not mean that [the State] has provided access to the Court’s jurisdiction.” Also, regarding the arguments concerning the perpetration of forced disappearances, it recalled that Guatemala had ratified the ICFDP on July 27, 1999; therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule in that regard. Lastly, it indicated that the limitation of the Court’s jurisdiction extended to the effects that had arisen over time owing to the principle of accesorium sequitur principale, which postulates that the accessory cannot be separated from the principle. 14. The representatives argued that neither the Commission nor they were asking the Court to rule on the events of the massacre that took place in 1982, but rather on facts following Guatemala’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. Many of those facts were of a continuous or permanent nature and the Court had already indicated that it had competence to examine such facts, even if they had initiated before the State’s acceptance of its jurisdiction. 15. The Commission underscored that, in the instant case, it had submitted to the Court “the State’s acts and omissions that occurred or continued to occur after March 9, 1987.” It also indicated that the Court had already ruled in this regard in the case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, in which it indicated that the Court also “has competence to examine human rights violations that are continuous or permanent even though the initial act violating them took place before the date on which the Court’s contentious jurisdiction was accepted, if the said violations persist after the date of acceptance, because they continue to be committed; thus, the principle of non-retroactivity is not violated.” Similarly, it clarified that facts prior to the said acceptance may be relevant for the Court’s analysis. Lastly, regarding the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Commission recalled that forced disappearance has been recognized as a permanent violation extending over time; therefore, the Court is able to rule on the continuation of the forced disappearance of the victims after Guatemala deposited the instrument ratifying that treaty. 16. The Court reiterates that it is unable to exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the American Convention and declare a violation of its provisions in relation to alleged State acts or conducts which could entail its international responsibility but that occurred before the acceptance of jurisdiction.12 However, it is clear that the Court is able to examine acts or facts that have taken Cf. 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, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 27. 12 7