14 measures for Ramiro Osorio Cristales and Salomé Armando Gómez Hernández, after March 9, 1987, which would constitute a violation of Article 19 of the Convention. 47. The Court notes that during the proceeding before it the State argued for the limitation of the Court’s jurisdiction, recognizing only the violations claimed by the Commission, considering that the violations claimed by the representatives are based on facts which occurred prior to the recognition of the Court’s adjudicatory jurisdiction. In that regard, the Court believes that the State is correct when it points out that the Court cannot hear the facts of the massacre themselves, given that they effectively are beyond the Court’s competence. However, the Court notes that the violations claimed by the representatives are not based on the facts of the massacre themselves, but in those which allegedly took place after March 9, 1987, date on which the State recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Court will only adjudge on those facts which allegedly took place after the recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, or had not ceased to exist as of that date. 48. The Court has competence to analyze the facts which refer to the alleged denial of justice in light of the procedural obligation derived from the duty to guarantee rights arising from Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, given that the representatives base the alleged violations on facts that fall within the Court’s temporary jurisdiction. 49. The Court considers that the State’s obligation to investigate arises in favor of those entitled to the right enshrined in Article 4 (Right to Life), considered along with Article 1(1) of the Convention, which is applicable to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in this case the deadly victims of the massacre, who were not determined alleged victims (supra para. 21) in the instant case. Therefore, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of those Articles, with regard to the obligation to guarantee those rights. However, the Court will examine the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention for the suffering caused by the alleged impunity, to the detriment of the 155 alleged victims who are next of kin of the individuals killed, as well as in relation to the additional suffering of the two surviving children. 50. With regard to the Court’s jurisdiction on the alleged violation of Articles 17 (Rights of the Family), 18 (Right to a Name) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, the Court observes that the facts on which the representatives base those violations refer to the situation presumably suffered by the two survivors of the massacre, for not obtaining special protection measures, and in the case of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, for having been separated from his family and with another name. This situation remained until both children reached legal age, and Ramiro Osorio Cristales reunited with his biological family in 1999 and recovered his name on May 15, 2002. Therefore, the Court considers that it has jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear this situation as of March 9, 1987, date on which the State recognized the Court’s jurisdiction. 51. The Court considers that the controversy in this case remains, and that it has competence to hear the facts and alleged violations of Articles 5, 17, 18, and 19 of the Convention. Therefore, it partially rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State, under the terms indicated in paragraphs 44 to 50 of this Judgment. Consequently, the Court will examine and determine the alleged violation of said rights in chapters IX and X of the instant Judgment.