40 the State “to identify whether its answer should be directed at an alleged continuing crime […] or […] at four different facts, about which it is not established whether they are continuing and which, on the contrary, appear to be a rationalization”; d) It may be presumed that the Commission presents “its application in a way that contributes to a judgment against the State at all costs, attempting to sidestep the Court’s evident lack of jurisdiction to consider an alleged continuing and permanent violation, rationalizing this surreptitiously in the object and plea of the application.” The object and plea duplicate the charges; e) The Commission and the representatives changed their position when they alleged that some of the facts are subsequent to the date on which the Court’s jurisdiction was recognized; this is contrary to the alleged unity, which implies that the continuing and permanent crime of forced disappearance constitutes a single fact. Consequently, the principle of estoppel should be applied; f) The principle of iura novit curiae is not limitless, because “judges and courts cannot […] change the subjective claims of petitioners”; and g) If the Court does not declare the application inadmissible and considers that “the violation of the State’s right to defense can be repaired during the hearing, [… it should] establish […] the alleged facts rationally, as requested by the Inter-American Commission in the object and plea of the application. Arguments of the Commission 125. In its arguments on preliminary objections, the Commission requested the Court to reject this objection, since “it has no effect” on the application. However, in its final written arguments the Commission requested the Court to “consider [the third objection] withdrawn,” because the State had withdrawn it during the public hearing; accordingly, it did not present any other argument. In this regard, the Court has established that, during the public hearing, the State only withdrew the second part of the third preliminary objection, namely, part 3(2) (supra paras. 50 and 122). When requesting the Court to reject this preliminary objection in its arguments on preliminary objections, the Commission indicated that: a) “In no circumstances” did the State’s arguments constitute a preliminary objection, since their basic purpose was not to question the Court’s jurisdiction. They did not affect the State’s right to defense, because there is no ambiguity or inconsistency in the application, which “is factually and juridically clear and presents the claims precisely and specifically”; b) Forced disappearance is a single phenomenon comprising a multiple violation of rights protected by the American Convention. “The forced disappearance is a single fact; but it entails examining and determining each of the rights violated.” The continuing violation of the rights began in June 1982 “and is renewed with every day that passes without justice being done” in this regard; and c) With this preliminary objection, the State is attempting to disregard the concept of continuing crime constituted by forced disappearance.