9 13. The Commission argued that, with the dates of ratification of the American Convention and the State’s recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, the application refers only to the violations enshrined in the American Convention that have persisted since said recognition of competence, given the continued nature of the crime of enforced disappearance, or that are subsequent to said recognition. In this sense, it affirmed that the Court has jurisdiction to know of the violations presented in the application. 14. The representatives argued that the violations claimed in the present case refer to the enforced disappearance of the alleged victims; to the impunity as a result of the lack of investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for said acts, and the inefficiency of the measures adopted to respect, protect, and guarantee the right to the truth and information. They noted that the possible start date of the disappearances does not restrict or limit the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, because it involves a violation of a permanent and continued nature. In addition, the alleged violations related with the rights to information, the truth, and justice persist subsequent to the ratification of the American Convention and the State’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. As such, the representatives requested the Court to dismiss this preliminary objection. Nevertheless, they indicated that one of the disappeared persons was identified in 1996, and that, as a consequence, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule regarding this individual’s enforced disappearance. 2. The Court’s considerations 15. In order to determine if the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case or aspects of it, pursuant to Article 62(1) of the American Convention,20 the Court must take into consideration the date of the State’s recognition of the jurisdiction, in the terms that it occurred and the principle of non-retroactivity enshrined in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatises of 1969.21 16. Brazil recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on December 10, 1998, and in its declaration it noted that the Court would have jurisdiction regarding “facts subsequent” to said recognition.22 Based on the aforementioned and the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to apply the Convention and rule a violation of its norms when the alleged facts or conduct of the State, that may implicate its international responsibility, are prior to the recognition of jurisdiction.23 As such, the 20 Article 62(1) of the Convention establishes: A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. 21 Said provision states: “[u]nless 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.” 22 The acknowledgment of the jurisdiction made by Brazil on December 10, 1009, notes that “[t]he Government of the Federal Republic of Brazil declares that it recognizes, for an undefined period, as binding, ipso facto, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in all of the cases related to the interpretation and application of the American Convention [on] Human Rights, pursuant to Article 62 of the same, under the reservation of reciprocity, and for facts subsequent to this Declaration.” Cf. General Information on the Treaty: American Convention on Human Rights. Brazil, recognition of jurisdiction. Available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/b-32.html; last accessed on November 18, 2010. 23 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 66; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary