9 extend its temporal jurisdiction […] by alleging [a] continuing or permanent conduct […], using it as a basis for an objection to the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties.” It explained the difference between a continuing crime and a permanent crime in its domestic legislation, and pointed out that forced disappearance is a permanent crime, since it is executed instantaneously but its effects persist over time. Therefore, “Guatemala does not accept” that the facts of the case should be considered as forced disappearances, since it would be modifying “the classification of said conduct retroactively […].” Finally, the State argued that “at no time [does it intend] to deny the facts, or to deny the victims the reparations to which they may be entitled as victims of the armed conflict.” In this regard, it stated that it “is aware of [its] obligations with respect to the events that occurred during the armed conflict [and for this reason created the] National Reparations Program,” the purpose of which is to provide reparations “to the victims of human rights violations committed by the State [and] by the insurgency.” However, this does not mean that it is withdrawing its “reservation so that the Court can hear these facts.” 16. In its brief submitting the case, the Commission indicated that it “submits to the jurisdiction of the Court the actions and omissions that occurred, or continued to occur, after March 9, 1987, the date on which the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court […].” This, “without prejudice to […] Guatemala accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the present case in its entirety, in accordance with the provisions of Article 62(2) of the Convention.” However, in its brief of observations on the preliminary objections, the Commission alleged that the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State before it, and reiterated in its answering brief to the Court, implies a waiver of the temporal limitation of jurisdiction made by Guatemala, “thus granting its consent for the Court to examine the facts that occurred and to rule on the violations that may arise in this regard.” During the public hearing, the Commission also pointed out “violations which began to occur prior to the [State’s] acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction [but] continued to occur after that date.” It further argued that the internal investigations were initiated after the acknowledgement of the Court’s jurisdiction. Finally, it pointed out that what the State filed was not a “reservation.” 17. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives stated that “the Court may examine acts or facts that have taken place after [March 9, 1987…] and that have generated violations […] of immediate and continuous or permanent execution”, and those “of a continuous or permanent nature even if the first act of execution has taken place before the date of acknowledgement.” However, in their observations on the preliminary objections, they pointed out that the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility before the Commission, which was reiterated in its answer before the Court, implies a waiver of the temporal limitation of jurisdiction. A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. The Court observes that the State seeks to prevent the Court from hearing the facts of the case that occurred prior to March 9, 1987, the date on which Guatemala accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, as well as those facts of a continuous or permanent nature whose first act of execution took place before that date. The foregoing, on the grounds that it had allegedly filed a “reservation” that limited the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. 19. In order to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear a case or an aspect thereof, the Court must take into consideration the date of recognition of its jurisdiction by the State, the terms on which such recognition was given, and the principle of non-retroactivity, provided for in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 8 In this case, it is clear that the Court may examine acts or facts that have taken place after the date of such recognition. Even though the State is obliged to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention from the date on which it ratified it, the competence of the Court to declare a violation of its provisions is governed by the State’s acknowledgement. 8