8 State thus cannot see clearly what particular human rights it is accused of having breached, and this has a direct impact on its right of defense. It therefore asks the Court to strike this brief of pleadings and motions, or alternatively, order that it be corrected. The Court finds that this argument by the State does not specifically question whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case and therefore, this request is out of order. 17. Therefore, the Court will proceed to consider the other three preliminary objections in the order in which they were cited by the State. A. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis A.1 Arguments by the State, the Commission and the representatives 18. The State has said that Argentina ratified and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on September 5, 1984, expressly declaring that this jurisdiction would cover anything that might occur as of that date and into the future. As a result, the scope of the obligations the State acquired was envisioned to exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction any event, situation, motive, cause, origin or reason associated with events that had occurred prior to that date. The State also drew attention here to the fact that the Court’s case law has distinguished between one-time acts versus on-going or permanent actions, and on this basis, it believed that forced disappearance of persons was the only exception to the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties, while actions taken as part of domestic judicial proceedings could not be described as on-going or permanent and could not justify a “pseudo exception” to the nonretroactive principle of international treaties. 19. The State therefore argued that events associated with the pursuit of investigative proceedings from September 9, 1980 through September 5, 1984 fell outside the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, meaning particularly, the following facts: (a) arrest warrants of the applicants; (b) the duration of the process in this period; (c) the solitary confinement ordered as a precautionary measure for some of the alleged victims; (d) the exhortation to tell the truth when formal opening statements were taken during that period; (e) the order for and enforcement of the precautionary measure of pretrial incarceration of the alleged victims in the common facilities of the Air Force during that time, and (f) the lack of qualified defense counsel. 20. The Commission had submitted the case to the Court on the grounds of actions and violations committed by the State as of the date when it ratified the American Convention and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. It clarified, however, that although the incarceration and the military justice processes had indeed begun before Argentina ratified the Convention and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, these situations had continued after the State’s acceptance. The Commission also noted that the events that predated the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction would prove relevant when the Court proceeded to examine the facts that took place under its recognized jurisdiction. The Commission therefore asked the Court to dismiss this preliminary objection and declare that it had temporal jurisdiction to hear the instant case in the terms outlined in its note submitting the case. 21. All the representatives agreed that the events outlined by the Commission for the Court had occurred in part from 1980 to 1984, but in fact these breaches continued to take place after the Convention had gone into effect, and in that sense, they constitute on-going violations, and it would be impossible to set up artificial divisions among the many factors that constitute and characterize the violations. In particular, representative Vega argued that