11 not consider it necessary to examine here the legal theory of ongoing illicit acts15; it is sufficient that it confirm that, if any of the facts imputed to the State were of this nature, it would not be a “fact that had occurred after September 5, 1984”, the only category of facts for which Argentina accepted the jurisdiction of this Court16. 40. The third category of facts with regard to which the contentious jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised includes the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina after September 5, 1984, including the judgment of September 3, 1996, if it were alleged that the said proceedings could constitute per se violations of the American Convention. 41. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that it should only accept partially the second preliminary objection. VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 42. Therefore, THE COURT, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. Not to accept the first preliminary objection of lack of competence based on Article 1(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To accept partially the second preliminary objection on lack of competence in accordance with the terms of paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this judgment. 3. To continue hearing and processing the instant case. 4. To authorize its President to duly convene the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a public hearing on the merits of the case, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 5. To notify this judgment to the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Done at San José, Costa Rica, on September 7, 2001, in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic. Antônio A. Cançado Trindade 15 Cf. Blake case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 29 and ff. 16 C.P.J.I., Series A/B, No. 74, p. 37.