-6domestic remedies,” in accordance with paragraphs 141 and 142 of [the] judgment. Dissenting Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello […] 22. On January 19, 2005, on the instructions of the President and in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat sent a note to the State requesting its cooperation in forwarding the to Court, by January 28, 2005, at the latest, a copy of any other measures that had been taken in the criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court, “Case No. 112/93,” after September 6, 2004. 23. On January 28, 2005, responding to the President’s request (supra para. 22), the State filed a brief with an appendix, in which it indicated that “the Public Prosecutor’s office-Chalatenango Subregional Branch, […] ha[d] ordered the Trial Court […] to issue an official communication to the Minister of National Defense requesting him to authorize the Commander of the Fourth Infantry Brigade of Chalatenango to make the relevant log book available for inspection [, … and] to advise whether during the period between 1982 and 1993, there [was] any record of a possible adoption relating to the children, Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz.” The State attached a copy of the communication issued by the Prosecutor on January 21, 2005. 24. On January 31, 2005, in response to the President’s request (supra para. 22), the State transmitted a certified copy of the communication notifying the Prosecutor of the decision issued by the Chalatenango Trial Court on January 27, 2005, ordering the measures that the Prosecutor had requested in the official communication of January 21, 2005 (supra para. 23). III JURISDICTION 25. Under the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits, reparations and costs in this case, since El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 26. The State filed four preliminary objections, three of which have been rejected and one of which has been partially accepted by the Court in the judgment on preliminary objections delivered on November 23, 2004 (supra para. 21). In this judgment, the Court partially accepted the preliminary objection of “Lack of jurisdiction Ratione temporis,” and decided that it did not have competence to consider facts or acts that occurred prior to June 6, 1995, the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS”), nor did it have competence to consider facts or acts which began prior to June 6, 1995, and which extended until after that date. Additionally, in the said judgment, when partially rejecting the said preliminary objection, the Court decided that it did have competence to consider “the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and any other violation, whose facts or commencement of execution were subsequent” to the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Hence, in this judgment, it will examine the legal