15 would not have jurisdiction, “even if their effects continue over time and exceed the critical date of June 6, 1995.” The second situation includes violations subsequent to June 6, 1995, or whose commencement is subsequent to this critical date; these would be “subject to the full protection of all the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.” Lastly, the limitation to the recognition of jurisdiction required by the State creates a third situation, which includes the continuing or constant violations, executed before and after the imposed time limit “whose assessment and classification is only significant if the fact is considered and dealt with integrally”; d) “The facts of this case call for consideration of the legal theory of continuing unlawful acts established by the Court as of the Blake case.” Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz have been disappeared since June 2, 1982, when they were “taken into custody by State agents. To divide their existence, owing to the limit established by the critical date, would have the effect of completing their disappearance,” when “there is no evidence of their existence,” due to acts that can be attributed to the State; e) The State interprets that the reservation made in its recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction has the effect of excluding the alleged victims from the Court’s protection, “even when disappearances are continually self-renewing and self-perfecting acts.” This exclusion “would have the effect of constituting [… a] crime against humanity.” If this interpretation were adopted, the Court would be acting contra homine”; f) The scope that the Court grants to declarations recognizing its jurisdiction must allow them to have an effet util; g) “Regardless of any consideration about the limitation established by the State, the Salvadoran judicial authorities have always had the treatybased obligation to provide justice by conducting all the investigatory measures necessary to determine the whereabouts of the Serrano Cruz sisters, identify those responsible for the violations committed against them, and make reparation to their next of kin. Moreover, as of June 1995, the inaction of these authorities constantly violated an obligation, which, they consider, only makes sense if it is considered integrally.” Moreover, “more than nine years after the recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, there is no evidence that any measure is being taken to end the situation of forced disappearance”; h) The declaration made by El Salvador cannot exclude the Court from considering acts that occurred after the “critical date” of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, nor those that continue to occur. When answering a question posed by the Court during the public hearing, the Commission indicated that “there are acts and effects that have occurred subsequent to the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, which remain and are repeated, and which commenced and were executed after 1995. There are completely independent judicial decisions, new decisions to file the case, to close judicial proceedings, decisions to re-open, to hear judicial actions as mere formalities; the State has demonstrated a permanent attitude of declining to re-establish the identity of the girls; for example, the State has systematically refused to implement any kind of legislative, executive or judicial initiative to