38 16, 1998, is a special remedy; for which reason as of the time of recognition by Mexico of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the proceedings before the regular penal court were brought to an end (supra para. 58(1)(24) y 25). 82. Despite the fact that the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim alleged violation of the due process in the rejection of the recognition of innocence remedy, the Court has corroborated that in reality the objection set forth does not relate to the processing of this remedy per se, but to the outcome of the action. The Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim allege that in declaring such remedy groundless the effects of a confession presumably obtained under torture were maintained. The national courts felt, however, that the judgment was based on other evidence in addition to the confession (supra para. 58.1.15). The Court does not have jurisdiction to revise this decision, unless a specific act of non compliance with the rules of the due process had been alleged concerning the processing of such remedy, which neither the Commission nor the representatives of the alleged victim did. 83. The decision being now delivered by the court does not in the least involve judgment about the existence or non existence of torture against Mr. Alfonso Martíndel-Campo, but is founded solely and exclusively on legal considerations deriving from the Court’s rules on jurisdiction, the lack of observance of which would imply excess in the exercise of powers defined in the Convention, which would also generate legal insecurity. 84. In exercising the protection function attributed to it by the American Convention, the Court seeks a fair balance between the protection imperatives, equity considerations and legal security, as may be clearly inferred from the Court’s constant jurisprudence. 85. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court feels that the principle of non retroactivity of international rules enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in international law in general must be applied and, in accordance with the terms in which Mexico recognised the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, it admits the ratione temporis preliminary objection entered by the State for the Court not to hear the case of alleged violations of the American Convention or the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture that occurred before December 16, 1998 (supra para. 57), and consequently declares that it is not up to the Court to analyse the second preliminary objection. VIII 86. Therefore, THE COURT, DECIDES: Unanimously , 1. To admit the first preliminary objection ratione temporis, entered by the State, in terms of para. 78-85 of the present judgment. 2. To file the case.