10 requested as helpful evidence (supra para. 42). In this regard, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat again asked the State to forward the remaining documents: (a) copy of any measure taken in this proceeding after September 6, 2004; and (b) all the documentation related to the declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights made by El Salvador in 1995, including documentation on any discussion that might have arisen in this regard in the Legislative Assembly or any other State body responsible for proposing, drafting and adopting this declaration of recognition. 44. On October 8, 2004, the Inter-American Commission remitted its final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparation, and costs. 45. On October 8, 2004, the representatives remitted their final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparation, and costs. 46. On October 15, 2004, the State remitted a brief with documentation related to the declaration of recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court made by the State in 1995, which had been requested as helpful evidence (supra paras. 42 and 43). 47. On October 18, 2004, the State submitted a brief with which it remitted a copy of “Executive Decree No. 45, signed by the President of the Republic and the Minister of the Interior, creating the ‘Inter-Institutional Commission to seek the children who disappeared as a result of the armed conflict in El Salvador’”. V JURISDICTION 48. Under the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, the Court is competent to hear the preliminary objections raised by the State in this case, since El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. VI PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 49. In the brief answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief (supra para. 23), the State filed the following preliminary objections: 1. “Lack of jurisdiction rationae temporis” 1(1) “Non-retroactivity of the application of the crime of forced disappearance of persons”; and 1(2) Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 2. “Lack of jurisdiction rationae materiae” 3. “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text”