33 of evidence, according to the rules of sound criticism. 98. In relation to the testimony of Thelma Bienvenida Reyes (supra para. 86(b)(3)), which was not contested or opposed, the Court admits it and recognizes its probative value. Regarding the testimony of Amada Rodríguez Guante (supra para. 86(b)(2)), the Court notes that, during the public hearing, the purpose of her testimony was modified and it was decided that she should testify on the education of the child Violeta Bosico and the alleged non-pecuniary damage the child suffered by losing one year of school; this was not contested or opposed, so the Court admits it insofar as it corresponds to the purpose of the examination of the witness, and grants it probative value. 99. Based on the above, the Court will assess the probative value of the documents, statements and expert reports presented in writing or made before it. All the evidence submitted during the proceeding has been incorporated into a single body of evidence, which will be considered as a whole.26 VII PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 100. The Court considers that, before examining the merits of the dispute, it should clarify its competence in this case, since the Dominican Republic accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 25, 1999. 101. In its application, the Commission indicated that it was not requesting the Court to establish violations based on facts that occurred prior to March 25, 1999; it stated that the facts that took place prior to that date were “submitted to the Court to provide background material to the violations that can be attributed to the State following its acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction.” 102. In this respect, the representatives stated that “the Court has full jurisdiction to decide cases of alleged violations [of] the Convention by the State as of March 25, 1999,” and advised that “they recognize that the children’s situation of abandonment also results from facts that occurred prior [to that date, which the] Court should consider [...] as background material.” 103. The State indicated that “the temporal jurisdiction of the Court [...] is delimited by the moment at which the State accepted this jurisdiction.” 104. When determining whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear a case pursuant to Article 62(1) of the American Convention, the Court must take into consideration both the date of the State’s acceptance of its jurisdiction, and also the principle of non-retroactivity established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which applies to the period during which the juridical effects of the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction are effective.27 26 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 49; Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 16, para. 49, and the Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 24, para. 46. 27 Cf. Case of the Moiwana community, supra note 8, paras. 38 and 39; Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 108, and the Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections, supra note 7, paras. 64 and 65.