19. The State deposited the document ratifying the Convention of Belém do Pará before the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States on June 4, 1996. Based on this, and on the principle of non-retroactivity codified in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court may examine acts or facts that occurred following the date of this ratification, 13 and that have resulted in human rights violations of instantaneous execution and those also of continuing or permanent execution. 20. Accordingly, the Court considers that it does not have competence to rule on the alleged rape to which Ms. J. was presumably subjected in 1992, as a possible violation of the Convention of Belém do Pará. However, the Court does have competence to rule on whether the said act constituted a violation of the American Convention (supra para. 3). 21. In addition, as it has in other cases, including the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, the Court will examine the arguments on the supposed denial of justice in light of the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, regarding which this Court does have competence. 14 Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. IV PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A) On the determination of presumed victims in this case 22. In accordance with Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in its brief submitting the case, the Inter-American Commission indicated that the presumed victim in this case was Ms. J. Nevertheless, it noted that, following the notification of the Merits Report, the representative “presented a brief in which she included a list of family members affected by the violations against Ms. J.” Before the Court, the representative alleged that the mother, father, sisters and companion of Ms. J. should be considered beneficiaries of the judgment. The State opposed the inclusion of these persons as presumed victims, because, in its Merits Report, the Commission had only identified Ms. J. as the victim, so that “the analysis of the facts [was] limited to what happened to Ms. J. […], and did not include the repercussions of these acts on her family.” 23. The Court recalls that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Commission’s Merits 15 Article 35(1) of this Court’s Rules of Report issued pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention. Procedure establishes that the case shall be presented to the Court by the submission of the said report, which must “identify the presumed victims.” According to this article, it is for the Commission and not this Court to identify the victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the 13 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 39 and 40, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 37. 14 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 5 and 344, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 26. 15 This has been the Court’s consistent case law since the Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 65 to 68, and the Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 224 and 225. These judgments were adopted by the Court during the same session. In application of the Court’s new Rules of Procedure, this criterion has been ratified since the Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 214, and the Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 27. 9