33 which the inter-American system and the American Convention itself are based. It is equally evident that this crime implies a series of violations of different rights embodied in the Convention and that, in order to declare the violation of these rights, the Court does not require the defendant State to have ratified the relevant Inter-American Convention, nor does it require this in order to classify all these violations as forced disappearance.20 106. In the context of this case, the Court rejects the preliminary objection ratione temporis entitled “Non-retroactivity of the application of the crime of forced disappearance of persons,” because the Court has already decided that it will not consider the alleged forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz (supra paras. 78 and 79). SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “LACK OF JURISDICTION RATIONAE MATERIAE” 107. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin regarding this preliminary objection. Arguments of the State 108. In its brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief, and also in its final oral and written arguments, the State requested the Court to declare that it lacked jurisdiction “because the facts [of the instant case] related to international humanitarian law.” In this regard, the State argued that: a) The facts of the instant case occurred when the State of El Salvador was undergoing “one of the most difficult and critical moments in its history (1979-1992),” when there was a “clear confrontation” between opposition forces and governmental forces. “The situation of internal tension from 1979 to 1992, constituted a non international armed conflict” and was regulated by the provisions of international humanitarian law, specifically by the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, to which El Salvador is a party. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) intervened in order to provide protection and assistance to the victims of the conflict and it was recognized that “international humanitarian law was applicable and in force, […] irrespective of how the conflict was described”; b) “The principal regime applied to the situation in El Salvador was [...] international humanitarian law,” which “includes provisions on many matters that are outside the scope of international human rights law.” International humanitarian law and international human rights law “have been developed independently and appear in different treaties.” “International humanitarian law is an exceptional, emergency law, which is involved when the international or national order is interrupted, while human rights law applies in times of peace” and “many of its provisions may be suspended.” “El 20 Cf. Blake case. Preliminary objections, supra note 8, para. 35; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, supra note 15, para.151; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 15, para. 166; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 15, para. 158.