8 36. The State pled preliminary objections on the following grounds: the Court's lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear the instant case, and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court will proceed forthwith to examine these preliminary objections, taking into account the written and oral pleadings of the State, the Commission and the representatives. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis Arguments of the State 37. The State claims that the Inter-American Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this application; although the Commission has limited its claim to violation of Articles 1(1), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in fact it intends to obtain a veiled judgment against the State for breach of Article 4 of the Convention. This is apparent in the Commission's requests for reparation, which would apply for violation of the right to life, but not denial of justice, to wit: a) to adopt a comprehensive policy for protection of human rights defenders; b) to identify and punish the perpetrators of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; and c) to redress pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages for suffering caused by the death of the attorney. Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho died prior to the State's acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, which took place two years later, and therefore the Court cannot rule on it. Arguments of the Commission 38. The Inter-American Commission is asking the Court to rule on violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention and on the State's breach of obligations embodied in Article 1(1), due to lack of due diligence in investigating the facts and punishing the perpetrators, and because it failed to provide an effective remedy in the instant case. The application refers to a separate body of facts and omissions that took place following the date when the State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court and entailed its obligation to investigate the murder of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, effectively, adequately and in a reasonable time. Therefore, it is an error to assume that the Commission seeks to obtain a veiled judgment for violation of Article 4 of the Convention, which in fact would be a liberal interpretation of the express content of the application. The events that led to violation of the right to life of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho are beyond the scope of violations claimed in the application. Arguments of the representatives 39. The representatives argue that violation of the right to life applies not only to the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, but also to the State's failure to abide by its duty to investigate the death and punish those responsible. This obligation is on-going in nature and does fall within the time frame of the Court's jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction to rule on the violation not only of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, but also of Article 4 of the Convention, to determine whether the denial of justice comprises a breach of the right to life in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, as such a violation remains in effect until the State effectively investigates the facts, punishes those responsible and adopts measures to prevent such violations from recurring. Recognition of on-going violations of Article 4 of the American Convention could be limited to cases in which agents of the State hold prima facie responsibility for the original act. Conclusions of the Court