29 59. The State entered the following preliminary objections: 1. the lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to hear about the events and incidents having occurred prior to December 16, 1998, in case N° 12.228; and 2. non observance by the Inter-American Commission, of the basic rules for the processing of individual petitions as provided for in the American Convention and in the applicable rules of procedure; lack of objectiveness and neutrality on the part of the Inter-American Commission with regard to processing of the petition, admissibility, decision on the merits and submission of the petition to the court; and alteration by the Inter-American Commission of the prosecutorial balance, which resulted in defencelessness of the State during processing of the complaint. * * * FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 60. Following is the Court’s summation of the arguments of the State, the InterAmerican Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin for this preliminary objection: The State’s arguments 61. In the written brief of preliminary objections, response to the application and observations to the brief containing motions and arguments, the State requested the Inter-American Court that it declare that it does not have jurisdiction “to hear the instant case, since the events occurred and were consummated outside the time bounds of its jurisdiction, in conformity with the non retroactive recognition of its jurisdiction on the part of the [State] on December 16, 1998.” Regarding to the filing of this preliminary objection, the State expressed the following: a) it is founded on Article 62 of the American Convention and on the terms and scope of the State’s December 16, 1998, recognition of the InterAmerican Court’s contentious jurisdiction; b) the State’s recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction “is conditioned temporarily, to ‘the events or legal actions having occurred after the date on which [ratification of such recognition] was deposited, for which reason it shall not have retroactive effects;’ ” c) recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of an international jurisdictional mechanism such as the Court implies “an important, voluntary and positive decision on the part of the States, for purposes of strengthening the primary protection system governing the internal bodies through the possibility to set forth complaints” before the inter-American system. It would be, therefore, important to have clear and precise rules concerning the level of submission of the States to such procedures; d) one of the main purposes of the States’ prerogative to attribute a temporary condition to the jurisdiction of an international jurisdictional body