19. The representatives rejected the State’s position that the Court can examine only those possible violations of Articles 5(1), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention that began or must have begun after December 10, 1998, because, as they argued, (i) the Court has jurisdiction to hear facts that began prior to that date and (ii) both the Commission and the representatives identified specific, independent violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention that took place after the date of Brazil’s recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. A.2. Considerations of the Court 20. The Court has reiterated that by virtue of the principle of non-retroactivity, it cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the American Convention to events that occurred prior to the State’s recognition of its jurisdiction. 15 However, this Court has found that it does have jurisdiction over continuous or ongoing human rights violations that began prior to the date of the State’s recognition of the Court's contentious jurisdiction and that continue after that date. 16 It has also established that it has jurisdiction to hear violations that took place in the context of a trial or legal investigation, even if that trial or investigation began prior to the date of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, if those violations derived from independent events that occurred after the date of recognition. 17 21. On this point, the Court has established in its settled case law that it can hear and rule on alleged violations involving acts or decisions that occurred after the date of recognition of the Court's contentious jurisdiction, even if legal proceedings began prior to that date of recognition. 18 22. In its analysis of the case, the Court finds that specific independent events were identified, both in the Merits Report and in the pleadings and motions brief, that allegedly occurred in the context of the criminal and civil proceedings after December 10, 1998, the date of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. As it has temporal jurisdiction to rule on the aforementioned facts, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. B. Preliminary objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 15 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 61 to 62; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 23 to 24; Case of Garibaldi, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 20; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 16; Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 18, and Case of the Massacre of the Village of Los Josefinos v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 16. 16 In this regard, the Court has maintained that even if the initiating action took place before the date of recognition of the Court's jurisdiction, if those violations persist after that recognition, that means they are still being committed and the Court thus has jurisdiction to hear them. Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 65; Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 25; Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 20, and Case of the Massacre of the Village of Los Josefinos v. Guatemala, supra, para. 16. 17 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra, para. 84; Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 49 to 50; Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 28, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, para. 21. 18 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 44 and 45, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 21. 8