29 99. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin requested the Court to declare that it had jurisdiction to hear the facts of the instant case and argued that: a) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Court’s recent case law establish the principle of non-retroactivity, which means that “the provisions of a treaty do not bind a State Party in relation to any act or fact which took place before the date of the entry into force of the treaty.” However, in some cases or situations this argument may be modified, owing to the so-called “juridical theory of continuing unlawful acts.” In other words, jurisdiction ratione temporis exists with regard to facts or violations that, even though they occurred before recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, continued over time (continuing unlawful acts) and persisted after this recognition; b) They share the Commission’s opinion that “the reported facts […] constitute the crime of forced disappearance [… and] have retained this characteristic since the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction on June 6, 1995.” The characteristic of “continuity” implicit in the crime of forced disappearance “authorizes the Court to hear the instant case ‘ratione temporis’”; c) The crime of forced disappearance is characterized by its “finalistic trajectory and a specific dolus,” since the crime seeks to hide the passive subjects indefinitely, create uncertainty about their fate, cause them the most absolute lack of security, and exclude them from the protection of the judicial organs. The Penal Code of El Salvador includes this crime in the chapter entitled “Crimes against humanity”; hence, the legislator wished to indicate that “the elements that characterize the crime are those that have been recognized by international legal doctrine as crimes against humanity”; d) Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes the principle of the non-retroactivity of the application of international treaties. The alleged violations are continuing and, accordingly, do not constitute an exception to the principle of non-retroactivity. The commencement of the disappearance of the two Serrano Cruz sisters took place on June 2, 1982, and this violation persists up until today, and will persist until the whereabouts of the minors is established, because this violation is of a continuing nature; and e) The crime of forced disappearance is a multiple crime, because the legal rights affected include the individual’s right to life, liberty, humane treatment, peace, safety and wellbeing. Some of the reported facts occurred after June 6, 1995; they include: the filing of the petition for habeas corpus; the delivery of the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador on March 14, 1996; the procedures of the criminal proceeding aimed at obstructing and delaying it, and the closing of the investigation on two occasions. Moreover, the deprivation of liberty of the alleged victims continues today, and also the separation from their family, the suppression of their identity, the denial of justice for the girls and their family and, since these violations are “a consequence of the disappearance, the Court has jurisdiction to rule [on them].” In addition, the State’s negligence and