15 b) the State cannot be punished for obligations that it has not undertaken and that did not exist at the time of the alleged facts; there could, instead, be violations of Article 5 of the American Convention. Pleadings of the Commission 57. The Commission argued that: a) it will not refer to said preliminary objection because neither the Article 50 of the American Convention report nor the application before the Court had referred to the Inter-American Convention against Torture; and b) it asked the Court to dismiss this objection. Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 58. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin stated that: a) Ecuador ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on November 9, 1999 and it entered into force for the State on December 9 of that year, independently of the date on which the State published it in its Official Gazette, pursuant to Article 22 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture; b) pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the provisions of the treaty do not establish obligations of a State Party in regards to an act or fact that took place prior to the entry into force of the treaty; c) they did not ask the Court to rule on the violations that took place before December 9, 1999; and d) the State has begun no investigation with the aim of identifying and punishing those responsible for the torture inflicted on Mr. Tibi. There is no evidence, either, of any investigation regarding the abuse, mistreatment, and death threats received by the victim from other inmates. Therefore, the State abridged Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which refer to the obligation of the State to prevent, investigate and punish torture, an obligation which to date has not been fulfilled. The Court has jurisdiction to rule on these violations. Considerations of the Court 59. Before considering the instant objection filed by the State, this Court deems it necessary to specify that it refers to an argument regarding a time-related aspect of its jurisdiction (ratione temporis) rather than an objection regarding the subject matter of the case (ratione materiae). 60. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin asked the Court to find the State responsible for the alleged lack of prevention, investigation, and punishment of the torture, as well as for the deficient definition of the crime of torture. They did not ask the Court to rule on violations of the Inter-American Convention against Torture committed before it entered into force in Ecuador.