10 treaty. On the other hand, Mexico argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine if the reservation made to Article IX of the mentioned Convention26 was or not compatible with international law, since the State had never invoked that reservation as justification for the failure to comply with its international obligations and because it was not the object of litis in the process before the Inter-American Commission. Finally, the State contested the legal interest of the representatives in requesting the nullity of the mentioned reservation. 27. The Commission indicated that it had not invoked violations to the CIDFP, and therefore it would not go on the record regarding this matter. On their part, the representatives argued that the interpretative statement made by the State of Mexico did not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Likewise, they held that both the CIDFP and the reservation to its Article IX had formed part of the litis within the national and international realm. 28. Regarding the jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear of alleged violations to the CIDFP, the Court observes that, upon ratifying said Convention on April 9, 2002, Mexico made the following “interpretative statement”: “Based on Article 14 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, […] shall be understood that the provisions of said Convention shall apply to acts constituting the forced disappearance of persons ordered, executed, or committed after the entry into force of this Convention.” 29. In this sense, the Tribunal warns that Article 14 of the Political Constitution of Mexico, referred to in the interpretative statement indicates, inter alia, that “[no] law will be given a retroactive effect in detriment of any person whatsoever.” Based on the aforementioned, the State adduced that “Mexico’s temporary limitation to the CIDFP is admissible […] since the […] Court can hear of forced disappearances executed after April 9, 2002. […] Since the limitation of the State of Mexico to the instrument […] refers to facts executed prior to April 9, 2002, the […] Court cannot hear of facts or acts that were committed or executed prior to April 9, 2002, and whose effects were completed in that act.” 30. The “statement” made by Mexico allows the clarification of the sense or temporary scope regarding the application of the CIDFP. Based on the current sense of its terms it can be clearly concluded that the stipulations of the Convention are applicable to facts executed or committed after it has gone into force. In light of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, this Tribunal has stated that the “current sense” of the terms cannot be a rule itself but it must be included within the context and, especially, within the object and purpose of the treaty.27 Likewise, the Tribunal has stated that the “current sense of the terms” shall be 26 Upon ratifying the ICFDP Mexico made the following reservation: “The Government of the United Mexican States […] makes express reservation to Article IX, inasmuch as the Political Constitution recognizes military jurisdiction when a member of the armed forces commits an illicit act while on duty. Military jurisdiction does not constitute a special jurisdiction in the sense of the Convention given that according to Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution nobody may be deprived of his life, liberty, property, possessions, or rights except as a result of a trial before previously established courts in which due process is observed in accordance with laws promulgated prior to the fact.“ 27 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 23; Compatibility of Draft Legislation with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-12/91 of December 6, 1991. Series A No. 12, para. 21, and Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20/09 of September 29, 2009. Series A No. 20, para. 26.