13 tortured and executed during the massacre, and the right to humane treatment of the survivors. 43. Additionally, in relation to the two children who survived the massacre, Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales (hereinafter “Ramiro Osorio Cristales”) and Salomé Armando Gómez Hernández (hereinafter “Salomé Gómez Hernández”), the representatives argued that the Court has jurisdiction to hear on the alleged violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child), due to the State’s non-compliance with the obligation to provide special protection measures given their condition as children; and in the case of Ramiro Osorio Cristales also for the alleged violation of Articles 17 (Rights of the Family) and 18 (Right to a Name) for having been separated from his family and with a name different from that given to him by his parents. 44. The Court, like every organ with contentious functions, has the inherent power to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction (compétence de la compétence). The instruments for recognition of the optional clause of the compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62.1 of the Convention) presuppose the acceptance, of the States who present it, of the Court’s right to resolve any controversy related to its jurisdiction. In order to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction, the principle of non-retroactivity of the treaties established in international law and enshrined in Article 2822 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties of 196923 must be taken into consideration. 45. Guatemala recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987, and in its declaration it indicated that the Court would have jurisdiction on “cases occurred after” that recognition.24 Based on the foregoing and on the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court may not exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare a violation of its standards on facts occurred or state conduct which may imply its international responsibility when these are prior to the recognition of the Court’s competence.25 In this regard, the Court has considered that “it is competent to adjudge and declare on facts which constitute violations that occurred after the date on which the State recognized the competence of the Court, or which had not ceased to exist as of that date.”26 46. Having established this, it is the Court’s responsibility to determine whether it can hear the facts that constitute the violations of the Convention, claimed by the representatives in the instant case, namely: a) the lack of investigation of the death of the victims of the massacre after March 9, 1987, facts which would constitute a violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention in its procedural aspect, and b) in the case of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, being separated from his family, and with a different name than his, after March 9, 1987, which would constitute a violation of Articles 17 and 18 of the American Convention, as well as non-compliance with the protection 22 This Article establishes that: [t]he provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party, unless a different intention derives from the treaty or is otherwise proven. 23 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 35 to 37; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 23, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 19. 24 Guatemala’s recognition of contentious jurisdiction of March 9, 1987 indicates that “[t]he acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is for an indefinite term, of a general character, under conditions of reciprocity, and with the reservation that the cases in which the jurisdiction is recognized are exclusively those occurred after the date on which this declaration is presented to the Secretary of the Organization of American States.” 25 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina, supra note 23, para. 35 to 37; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 23, para. 24, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 20. 26 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 23, para. 24..