39 facts or acts on which the Court has decided that it will not rule (supra paras. 78 and 79). THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text” 121. As indicated above (supra para. 49), the State presented this preliminary objection in two parts: 3(1) “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text”; and 3(2) “Inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin”. 122. However, when presenting its final oral arguments on the preliminary objections at the public hearing on September 7, 2004 (supra paras. 38 and 50), the State indicated that “it withdr[ew]” the preliminary objection “on the inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims [and their next of kin].” 123. Since the State withdrew the second part of the third preliminary objection, the Court will now summarize the arguments of the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin regarding part 3(1) of this preliminary objection (supra para. 121). Arguments of the State 124. The State indicated that the plea in the application is contrary to the “body” of the application. In this regard, the State alleged that: a) It was not clear whether the Commission wanted the Court to consider the alleged capture, abduction and forced disappearance of the alleged victims that took place in 1982 because “it was continuing over time,” or whether it wanted the Court to consider and rule on the same facts, but only as of the date on which El Salvador recognized the Court’s jurisdiction; b) It was not clear whether the continuing crime alleged by the Commission included the violation of the rights established in Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, or whether the violation of some of these rights was due to the alleged failure to investigate the whereabouts of the alleged victims, identify and punish those responsible, and guarantee the right to the truth and adequate reparation to the next of kin, all of which “is contrary to the concept of forced disappearance”; c) The Commission’s application is not consistent, because there is no reference to an alleged continuing violation of the rights established in certain articles of the Convention in the object and the plea of the application; to the contrary, it “makes a rationalization of facts that are contrary to the continuity it alleges in other parts of the application.” This situation affects the right to defense and the principle of good faith, because it does not allow