30 160. The lack of diligence, approaching obstructionism, in not responding to repeated requests from the Government of Costa Rica, from the father of one of the victims, the Commission or the Court, regarding the location and exhumation of the "cadaver of La Montañita," made the discovery of that body impossible and could support a presumption of government responsibility (Order of January 20, 1989). Nevertheless, in view of the other evidence, that presumption alone does not authorize, and even less requires, a finding that Honduras is responsible for the disappearance of Francisco Fairén Garbi. The Court recognizes, of course, that had the body been found and identified as that of Francisco Fairén Garbi, it would have been a significant contribution to the establishment of the truth. The Government's action deprived the Court of that possibility. It must, however, be recognized that had the cadaver been exhumed and shown not to be that of Francisco Fairén Garbi, that alone would not have been sufficient to absolve Honduras of all responsibility in his disappearance. Because that presumption would not resolve the many contradictions arising from probative elements which point in a different direction, the Court cannot rest its decision solely upon the presumption. 161. Article 1 (1) of the Convention obligates the States Parties to "respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms . . ." The Court does not now consider it necessary to analyze the meaning of the expression "subject to their jurisdiction." That is unnecessary to decide the instant case because it has not been proven that the State of Honduras used its power to violate the rights of Francisco Fairén Garbi and Yolanda Solís Corrales. Although this proceeding has proven the existence of a practice of disappearances carried out or tolerated by Honduran authorities between the years 1981 and 1984, it has not been proven that the disappearances in the instant case occurred within the framework of that practice, or is otherwise imputable to the State of Honduras. XII 162. With no pleading to support an award of costs, it is not proper for the Court to rule on them (Art. 45 (1), Rules of Procedure). XIII 163. THEREFORE, THE COURT, unanimously 1. Rejects the preliminary objection interposed by the Government of Honduras alleging the inadmissibility of the case for the failure to exhaust domestic legal remedies. unanimously