51. The State indicated that, in a contentious case, it was essential that any legislative measure that was contested infringed the liberties of at least one specific individual because, to the contrary, the Court did not have competence to assess the compatibility of that measure with the Convention. In this case, it indicated that the Court did not have competence to examine the representatives’ request concerning the adoption of legislative measures to avoid retrogression in the combat against slave labor in Brazil. This was because the said request was conditional on the existence of draft laws seeking to amend article 149 of the Penal Code, and that such draft laws had not been enacted. 52. The Commission observed that the representatives had advised the Court of the legislative measures that were being adopted at that time, not with regard to the specific victims in this case, but rather to provide a context that demonstrated the relevance of the matter and to provide the Court with essential elements so that any measures of nonrepetition that might be ordered accorded with such measures and were pertinent for the existing situation of slave labor, including the legislative framework. 53. The representatives stated that they had requested “as a measure of reparation,” that the Court indicate to the State that it should abstain from adopting legislative measures that represented a retrogression in the combat against slave labor in Brazil, due to the existence of draft legislation that sought to limit the scope of article 149 of the Penal Code in relation to practices similar to slavery. C.2. Considerations of the Court 54. The Court notes that the State’s argument referred to a measure of reparation requested by the representatives to the effect that the Court order the State to refrain from adopting legislative measures that could represent a retrogression in the combat against slave labor in Brazil. The Court recalls that, in order to grant a measure of reparation, it must verify that there is a causal nexus between the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested. 41 Consequently, the Court considers that it is not possible to analyze the objection filed by the State, because it cannot be decided at a preliminary stage, but depends directly on the merits of the matter. 42 Therefore, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. D. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis with regard to facts prior to the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis in relation to facts prior to the State’s adhesion to the Convention 55. The Court will analyze together the two preliminary objections on temporal limitations (ratione temporis) filed by the State, because they refer to related assumptions and involve similar arguments by the State, the Commission and the representatives. D.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 288. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 96, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015, Series C No. 308, paras. 30 and 32. 42 16