6 concept of “preliminary objection,” the Court has stated repeatedly in its case law that this measure questions the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, owing to the person, the matter, the time or the place.9 Thus, the Court has indicated that the purpose of a preliminary objection is to obtain a decision that prevents or impedes the examination of the merits of the aspect questioned or of the case as a whole. Consequently, the content and purpose of the claim must satisfy the essential juridical characteristics that accord it the nature of “preliminary objection.” Claims that do not conform to this description, such as those relating to the merits of the case, can be formulated by other procedural acts established in the American Convention, but not as a preliminary objection.10 18. In the instant case, the State’s arguments questioning the competence of the Court to rule on alleged violations of the American Convention owing to the time at which they supposedly occurred indeed constitutes a preliminary objection. 19. In general, in order to determine whether it has competence to hear a case or any aspect of it pursuant to Article 62(1) of the American Convention,11 the Court must take into consideration the date of the State’s acceptance of its jurisdiction, the terms in which the State accepted it, and the principle of non-retroactivity established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which stipulates: 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. 20. Brazil accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998, and in its declaration indicated that the Court would have competence for “facts subsequent” to this acceptance.12 Based on this and on the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court is unable to exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and to declare a violation of its norms when the alleged facts or conduct of the State that could entail international responsibility preceded the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction.13 21. Having established the foregoing, the Court must decide whether it can examine the facts that are the grounds for the alleged violations of the Convention in this case, namely: 9 Cf. Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 15, and Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 15. 10 Cf. Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 15 and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 15. 11 Article 62 of the Convention establishes: 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. […] 12 In its acceptance of jurisdiction on December 10, 1998, Brazil indicated that “[t]he Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for an indefinite time, as obligatory and ipso jure, in all cases related to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, with the reservation of reciprocity and for facts subsequent to this declaration.” Cf. General information on the Treaty: American Convention on Human Rights, Brazil, acceptance of jurisdiction. Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/b-32.html; accessed on September 21, 2009. 13 Cf. Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 36; Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 24, and Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 44.