9 the Court should not restrict itself to the notion that the concept of on-going breaches could apply exclusively to cases of forced disappearance of persons, and that indeed the conviction handed down against the alleged victims by the military court and subsequently by the civil courts upheld violations that had taken place since the Convention entered into effect even though they had begun earlier. The representatives therefore believed that the State's position on the preliminary objection ratione temporis should be dismissed. A.2 Considerations of the Court 22. The Court must define temporal jurisdiction in accordance with article 62(1) 12 of the American Convention, considering the date when the State recognized its jurisdiction, the terms under which the recognition was given, and the principle of non-retroactivity provided for in article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.13 23. Argentina recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on September 5, 1984, and in its interpretive declarations, it noted that the Court would have jurisdiction over “acts that occur after the ratification of the above-mentioned instrument” of the American Convention,14 which took place that same day. 24. In exercising the protection function assigned to it by the American Convention, the Court seeks a fair balance between protection imperatives, equity considerations and legal certainty, as may be clearly inferred from the Court’s jurisprudence constante.15 Based on this and on the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court cannot in principle exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare breach of its provisions when the State’s actions or conduct alleged to invoke international responsibility predate recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction.16 25. However, in the case of an on-going violation that began before the respondent State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court and continues after this recognition, the Court is competent to examine the acts which took place after the acceptance of its competence.17 12 Article 62(1): A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. 13 Article 28: 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 respect to that party. 14 Argentina’s recognition of jurisdiction on September 5, 1984 states, “ the Government of Argentina recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This recognition is for an indeterminate period and on condition of reciprocity on all cases related to the interpretation or application of the Convention [...], with the partial reservation and bearing in mind the interpretative statements contained in the instrument of ratification.” Cfr. American Convention on Human Rights. Argentina, recognition of jurisdiction. Available at http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights_sign.htm. 15 Cfr. Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, par. 84, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, par. 25. 16 Cfr. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, par. 39 and 40, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, par. 40. 17 Cfr. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, par. 39 and 40, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, par. 40.