Convention on Human Rights. 28. Consistent with the above, this Court reaffirms its settled case law regarding its temporal jurisdiction, and in view of the specific arguments raised by the representative, the preliminary objection is partially granted, with the scope specified in the two preceding paragraphs. A. Preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 29. The State argued that the Report on the Merits included a conclusion on the violation of different provisions of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter also “the American Declaration”). It indicated that this preliminary objection complements the ratione temporis objection. It held that although the Court may interpret the provisions of the American Convention in light of the American Declaration, no provision on the Convention or elsewhere grants it “authority to establish the violation of provisions included" in the Declaration. It asked that the objection be sustained and, consequently, that the Court "declare itself without competence to determine violations of the norms of the American Declaration." 30. The representative noted that in the pleadings and motions brief, it requested application of the American Declaration in relation to facts that “began 'prior' to the entry into force of the Convention[,] but that, due to their continuing or permanent nature, they persisted ‘subsequent’ to it.” 31. The Commission argued that in the brief submitting the case it did not “explicitly or tacitly ask” the Court to determine whether the norms of the American Declaration had been violated. It added that the allusion to events prior to the entry into force of the American Convention and other treaties for Argentina, "is exclusively for the purposes of understanding the background of the facts giving rise to the State’s international responsibility." It asked that the preliminary objection raised be dismissed. B.2. Considerations of the Court 32. The Court notes that when submitting the case, the Commission did not ask for a finding of violations of the American Declaration, which is consistent with the scope of the contentious jurisdiction conferred to this Court by the American Convention in Article 62(3). The Court, therefore, will not rule on violations of the American Declaration. It should be noted that the arguments of the representative refer to facts that, as indicated, fall outside the temporal competence of this Court (supra paras. 26 and 27). 33. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised is denied. C. Preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies as regards harm involved in the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with the breach of the duties to provide reparations for human rights violations and adapt domestic law C.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 34. The State argued that during the proceedings before the Commission, it maintained that “the motion for reparations […] can be satisfied with the compensation and pension provided under the systems of reparation established in special […] laws [No.] 24,411, 25,914, and 26,913.” It argued that “after it had filed the petition […] the representative […] applied for compensation under these special laws,” making the case “inadmissible” in view of the 11