the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.15 The Court will then analyze the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the corresponding consequences as regards reparations. 28. The Court underscores the speech given by the President of the Republic of El Salvador on January 16, 2012, as well as the apology to the surviving victims of the said massacres and the next of kin, which have an important symbolic value to ensure that similar events are not repeated. Similarly, it emphasizes the undertaking made by the State to expedite the necessary measures of reparation in permanent dialogue with the representatives and in keeping with the criteria established by the Court. All these actions make a positive contribution to the advance of these proceedings, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the Convention16 and, in part, to satisfying the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations. 17 IV COMPETENCE 29. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. In addition, El Salvador deposited the instruments ratifying the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” on December 5, 1994, and January 26, 1996, respectively. 30. Although the declaration of acceptance of the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction included a temporal limitation,18 in the instant case, the State of El Salvador, based on the acceptance of the facts made in its brief answering the submission of the case and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief, and reiterated in its final oral and written arguments, declared unilaterally that “the limitation of jurisdiction – erroneously called a ‘reservation’ – contained in clause II of the written declaration of June 6, 1995, cannot be filed as a defense as is not operative in this case.” In addition, the State indicated that it “accepts the competence of this Court to rule on the facts that have been acknowledged.” Consequently, the Court understands that El Salvador has recognized its competence to examine all the facts that occurred after the ratification of the American Convention, but prior to its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction, even when those facts do not constitute violations of a continuing or permanent nature, and to rule on the violations in this case and their consequences; hence the State has expressly waived any temporal limitation to the exercise of the Court’s competence. In other words, at all procedural stages before the Court, the State has clearly 15 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 28. 16 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 26. 17 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 18, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 28. 18 The instrument in which El Salvador accepted the contentious competence of the Court includes the following temporal limitation in relation to cases that could be submitted to the Court’s consideration: The Government of El Salvador recognizes as compulsory ipso jure and without any special agreement, the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights or “Pact of San José.” The Government of El Salvador, on recognizing this competence, places on record that its acceptance is made indefinitely, on the condition of reciprocity, and with the reservation that the cases in which it recognizes the competence include only and exclusively subsequent events or legal decisions, or events or legal decisions that began to be executed after the date of the deposit of this Declaration of Acceptance, […]. Cf. Text of the declaration of recognition of the contentious competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, submitted to the OAS Secretary General on June 6, 1995. 12