9 40. The State questions the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear the instant case. It claims that, while the application refers only to the alleged violation of Articles 1(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the Commission is also seeking a judgment for beach of Article 4 of the Convention, which according to the State would not be possible given the time limitations of the Court's jurisdiction. 41. When it interprets the Convention in accordance with its purposes and ends, the Court must always preserve the integrity of the mechanism provided in Article 62(1). It would be inadmissible to subordinate the human rights protection system embodied in the Convention and, therefore, the jurisdictional function of the Court, to restrictions that render it inoperative.2 42. Moreover, the Court once again asserts the position it has taken in other cases, that the clause on recognition of the Court's jurisdiction is essential to guarantee the effectiveness of the mechanism for international protection, but it must be interpreted and applied with a view to the special character of human rights treaties and their collective implementation. In this regard, the Court has said that: [t]he States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human right treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning recognition of the Tribunal’s contentious jurisdiction.3 43. In the case at hand, the State placed no time restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Court in the declaration recognizing contentious jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court, in defining the scope of its own jurisdiction (compétence de la compétence), must consider only the principle of non retroactivity established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.4 44. The Court has already stated that it cannot exercise contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare a breach of its provisions if the alleged facts or conduct by the respondent State that could incur international responsibility take place prior to the State's recognition of the Court's jurisdiction.5 Therefore, the Court cannot hear the facts of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. 45. Nevertheless, the Court is competent to examine actions and omissions associated with on-going or lasting violations if such actions begin prior to the date of recognition of 2 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 107; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 67; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 128. 3 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 69; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 2, para. 66; and Case of Constantine et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 74. 4 This article states, “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its 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 regard to that party.” Likewise, Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 130; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 38; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 64. 5 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 105; Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 10; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 66.