16 re-establish their identity.” Furthermore, harassment of witnesses and the next of kin of the alleged victims has occurred subsequent to 1995; and i) “This case presents the Court with an issue of first impression, not only as regards considering a formula of double exclusion, but also owing to the special characteristics of the way in which the phenomenon of forced disappearance is manifested in the in this case […]. In the instant case, the recognition of the rights and obligations embodied in the Convention, and the reciprocal obligation of respect and guarantee of the States, was perfected on June 23, 1978. As of that date, the rights of Ernestina Serrano were recognized, and then those of her sister, Erlinda, who was born later.” Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 56. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin requested the Court to reject this objection and presented the following arguments: a) Human rights treaties establish obligations of an objective nature that must be guaranteed by the contracting States pursuant to their essential purpose: the protection and primacy of the dignity of the human being. When acceding to these treaties, States assumes various obligations, not only in relation to other States, but also towards the persons subject to their jurisdiction; b) In their arguments on the preliminary objections, the representatives indicated that: i) “When recognizing the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, [the State] was authorized to formulate the reservation of temporality with regard to facts that occurred subsequent to the date of” this recognition. However, not all reservations can be considered valid, because reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty cannot be formulated, pursuant to the provisions of Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. “The reservation […] cannot invalidate the protection of human rights, which is the object and purpose of the American Convention. Additionally, a reservation that allows a State to continue violating human rights “without any type of supervision or condemnation” is not valid; ii) The crime of forced disappearance violates non-derogable fundamental rights, so that “it constitutes an affront to humanity [… T]his type of fact [falls within] the international sphere of ius cogens.” Consequently, a reservation intended to restrict the temporal jurisdiction of the Court in such serious cases is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, because it prevents international protection; iii) The commencement of several of the alleged violations occurred after recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, “for example, the obstruction of justice that has characterized the case and that materialized with the denial of the remedy of habeas corpus in 1996, and also the anguish caused to the girls’ mother when she realized