13 f) Since, contrary to the presentation in the introduction and body of the application, in the object and plea of the application the facts are “rationalized” and not presented as a continuing event, the State alleges the objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis as follows: i) Regarding the “alleged capture and subsequent disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz […,] the commencement of this fact did not occur after June 6, 1995”; ii) “The alleged separation of [Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz] from their parents and next of kin, and also the alleged denial of identity, were not facts whose commencement occurred after June 6, 1995; consequently, the Court also lacks jurisdiction”; iii) Regarding the “alleged suffering of the next of kin of the Serrano Cruz sisters resulting from the capture and subsequent disappearance of the Serrano Cruz sisters, [...] these alleged violations also relate to past facts, because from the moment it is affirmed that they refer to violations of the right to humane treatment, protection of the family, and the obligation to respect rights embodied in the Convention, reference is being made to a fact which, as the plea states so well, occurred in the past”; and iv) Regarding the “alleged failure to respect the right of the next of kin of the victims to know the truth, which would imply the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, judicial protection and the obligation to respect rights embodied in the American Convention [… ,] it should be recalled that the criminal proceeding that began clarifying this fact began in 1993, so that it is also affected by the exclusion mentioned in the reservation made by El Salvador in June 1995, when recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction, because the commencement of this fact did not occur as of that year, but previously”; g) “The 1995 reservation made by the State of El Salvador was made in accordance with and based on the 1978 reservation [...] when El Salvador ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 20 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is applicable to the said instrument recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction, so that it should be considered that a reservation has been accepted by a State if it shall have raised no objection to the reservation by the end of a period of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation. In this regard, “there is no record that a member State of the system has raised an objection to the content of the 1995 reservation by the State of El Salvador or that it has been challenged; therefore, to question its validity almost ten years later would not only create a situation of legal uncertainty among the States but, above all, in legal doctrine on the law of treaties. […] In this regard, regarding the 1995 reservation, it could be said that the State of El Salvador has acquired a right owing to the passage of time, because lack of legal certainty cannot exist forever among States”; h) “Both the 1978 and the 1995 reservations are in keeping with [the Constitution], since the 1978 reservation put on record that the Convention was ratified with the proviso that this ratification was understood to be notwithstanding those provisions of the Convention that might enter into conflict with specific principles of the Constitution; and the 1995 reservation noted that the Government of El Salvador recogniz[ed] the jurisdiction of the