35 3. Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by an special agreement. 67. Based on such declaration, the State maintains that the only acts or events in the instant case that the Court has jurisdiction to hear are those that occurred after December 16, 1998, and only in the event that it were alleged that said acts could be per se constituted as violations of the Convention. 68. It is advisable, prior analysing the preliminary objection, that the Court reiterate some international law rules on this subject, such as it did in delivering a judgment on preliminary objections in the Case of Cantos in 2001. In said judgment the Court pointed out that: 34. In this respect, it is evident from the text of the Convention that a State may be a party to it and accept or reject the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court. Article 62 of the Convention uses the verb “may” to signify that acceptance of the jurisdiction is optional. It should also be emphasized that the Convention establishes obligations for States. These obligations are the same for all the States parties, in other words, they bind in the same way and with the same strength both the State party that has accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court and the State party that has not done so. Also, it is necessary to distinguish between “reservations to the Convention” and “acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court”. The latter is a unilateral act of each State, governed by the terms of the American Convention as a whole and, therefore, not subject to reservations. Although some doctrine refers to “reservations” to the acceptance of the jurisdiction of an international court, in reality, this refers to limitations in the acceptance of the jurisdiction and not, technically, to reservations to a multilateral treaty. 35. When codifying general law on this issue, Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that: 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. 9 . 69. Furthermore, as a jurisdictional body, the Court has the power to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction as something inherent to its attributions and that the (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz) 10 acknowledgement instruments of the optional clause of the mandatory jurisdiction assumes the admisibility, by the States that represent it, of the Court’s authority to solve any controversy relative to its jurisdiction. 11 70. In the case of Mexico it must be pointed out that it recognised the Court’s contentious jurisdiction in the understanding that, as established in Article 62 of the American Convention, it would “be applicable only to events or legal actions having 9 Cfr. Case of Cantos. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 07, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 34 and 35. 10 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 para. 68; Case of the Constitucional Court - Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55 para 31; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 32. 11 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 10, para. 33; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence, supra note 10, para. 34.