10 reality, this refers to limitations in the acceptance of the jurisdiction and not, technically, to reservations to a multilateral treaty. 35. When codifying general law on this issue, Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that: Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party. 36. It is worth indicating that Argentina deposited the instrument ratifying the American Convention and accepting the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date, in the understanding (pursuant to Article 62) that it would only have effect with regard to juridical acts or facts that occurred after the instrument ratifying the Convention and accepting the Court’s contentious jurisdiction had been deposited. 37. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the principle of the nonretroactivity of international norms embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in general international law should be applied, respecting the terms in which Argentina became a party to the American Convention14. 38. The Court now examines the facts set out in the application, in accordance with the terms in which Argentine ratified the Convention and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. Among the facts set forth (supra § 2), it is necessary to determine those that may fall within the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. In this respect, a first series of facts comprises those that occurred mainly in the 1970s and allegedly caused damages to the companies and person of Mr. Cantos, such as the searches by the Revenue Department of the Province of Santiago del Estero, the seizure of the accounting documentation, the detentions and the harassment. A second category comprises the agreement signed by the Government of the Province of Santiago del Estero and Mr. Cantos on July 15, 1982. The facts included in these two groups occurred before the entry into effect of the Convention for Argentina and, therefore, do not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. 39. The Commission argues that some of the facts of which the State is accused are ongoing illicit acts; that is, the illicit acts continue to exist today. The Court does 14 This Court has indicated that “the criteria on interpretation embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties may be considered rules of international law on the issue.” (Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 10, para. 114; Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Articles. 14(1), 1(1) and 2, American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 10, para. 21; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, supra note 10, para. 21; and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Article 4(2) and 4(4), American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 10, para. 48). The Court has also determined that the interpretation of the American Convention, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 31(1): good faith), is subordinate to its purpose and goal, which is the effective protection of human rights (Cf., among others, Constantine et al. case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 75; Benjamin et al. case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 76; Hilaire case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 84; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, supra note 10, paras. 58 and 128; and Caballero Delgado and Santana case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17, para. 30).