22 70. Furthermore, when determining its jurisdiction in a case when the defendant State has established some limitation with regard to it, the Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equity that will ensure the stability and reliability of international protection.11 71. Taking into account the above principles and parameters, the Court must determine whether it can consider the facts on which the alleged violations of the Convention are based; consequently, it will now examine its jurisdiction ratione temporis in light of the provisions of Article 62 of the Convention and of the limitation to the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction invoked by El Salvador. 72. Since the defendant State established a temporal limitation when it recognized this jurisdiction, which was intended to exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction facts or acts that occurred prior to the date on which the declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction was deposited and also facts and effects relating to a continuing or permanent violation commencing before this recognition; and since it alleged this as a preliminary objection, the Court will now consider whether this limitation is compatible with the American Convention and take a decision on its jurisdiction. 73. In the instant case, the temporal limitation to recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction established by El Salvador is based on the authority granted by Article 62 of the Convention to States Parties deciding to recognize the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, to establish a temporal limitation to this jurisdiction. Therefore, this limitation is valid, because it is compatible with the said provision. 74. In every case, the Court must determine whether the facts submitted to its consideration are excluded by the said limitation, because, pursuant to the principle of compétence de la compétence (supra para. 63), the Court cannot leave it to the States to determine what facts are excluded from its jurisdiction. This determination is one of the Court’s obligation in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions. 75. In other cases,12 the Court has declared that a specific limitation introduced by the State when recognizing its contentious jurisdiction ran counter to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Court observes that, contrary to this case, the aforesaid limitation had “a general scope that had the effect of totally subordinating the application of the Convention to domestic law […] and as decided by the domestic courts.” In this case, the application of the limitation established by El Salvador is not subordinated to the State’s interpretation of each case, but it is for the Court to determine whether the facts submitted to its consideration are excluded by the limitation. Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914. 11 Cf. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 84; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 42; and Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17, para. 44. 12 Cf. Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 79; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 79; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 88.