36 affirmation that human rights apply “only in times of peace” endangers the minimum human rights of those who are at war; b) According to Article 63 of the American Convention, the Court’s jurisdiction is not exclusively to consider facts that take place in times of peace, but includes those that occur during armed conflicts. In accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, this does not preclude the Court from interpreting provisions that grant protection to the individual in light of the Convention or other treaties of the inter-American protection system. The Court has recognized the value of international humanitarian law for the interpretation of the American Convention. To interpret the corresponding provisions of the Convention that were or are violated by the State in the most favorable way, the Court may take into consideration Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, as well as applicable provisions regarding the protection of children and forced displacement. c) Since June 23, 1978, the date on which it ratified the Convention, the State was bound to respect and guarantee the human rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, with no exception. “The ratification made by the Salvadoran State did not include any type of reservation to substantive provisions of the treaty.” And, the State has not indicated that it had suspended guarantees at the time the facts occurred; and d) In its oral arguments, the State “expressly acknowledged […] that international human rights law was in force” in situation of internal armed conflict. Considerations of the Court 111. The Court considers that since the State has alleged that “[i]nternational humanitarian law is an exceptional, emergency law, which is involved when the international or national order is interrupted[, as happened during the non international armed conflict in El Salvador from 1979 to 1992), while human rights law applies in times of peace” and that the facts of this case “should be examined in accordance with the applicable lex specialis, which is international humanitarian law, and this is outside the Court’s jurisdiction,” it must refer to the complementarity between international human rights law and international humanitarian law and the applicability of the former in times of peace and during armed conflict, and also repeat that this Court is empowered to interpret the norms of the American Convention in light of other international treaties. 112. Regarding the complementarity of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the Court considers it should emphasize that all persons, during internal or international armed conflict, are protected by the provisions of international human rights law, such as the American Convention, and by the specific provisions of international humanitarian law. Consequently, there is a convergence of international norms protecting those who are in such situations. In this regard, the Court stresses that the specificity of the provisions of international humanitarian law that protect individuals subject to a situation of armed conflict do not prevent the convergence and application of the provisions of international human rights law embodied in the American Convention and other international treaties. 113. The Court has recognized this convergence of the provisions of international human rights law and the provisions of international humanitarian law in other cases,