24 81. The facts described by the Commission that allegedly relate to the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, include the following: on November 13, 1995, the mother of the Serrano Cruz sisters filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, which was decided in a ruling of March 14, 1996; the decision issued on April 19, 1996, by the Chalatenango Court of First Instance; on May 27, 1998, the Chalatenango Court of First Instance ordered the filing of the criminal case; and on May 17, 1999, the criminal proceeding was re-opened. 82. In this regard, when alleging the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the representatives also indicated that some of the reported facts occurred after June 6, 1995. They included: the filing of the petition for habeas corpus on November 7, 1995; the delivery of the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador on March 14, 1996; and the measures taken in criminal proceeding 112/93 “which were intended to obstruct and delay the proceeding, including the closing of the investigation on two occasions: March 16 and May 27, 1998.” 83. In this regard, the State argued that “moreover, the Court cannot consider the alleged failure to investigate attributed to the jurisdictional bodies, because, since it relates to the alleged forced disappearance, it forms part of the continuing violations that commenced before the date on which El Salvador deposited its declaration recognizing jurisdiction.” 84. The Court considers that all the facts that occurred following El Salvador’s recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction and which refer to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, are not excluded by the limitation established by the State, because they refer to judicial proceedings that constitute independent facts. They commenced after El Salvador had recognized the Court’s jurisdiction and can constitute specific and autonomous violations concerning denial of justice occurring after the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. 85. Based on the above, the Court rejects the preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State so that the Court would not consider facts or acts that occurred after June 6, 1995, relating to the alleged violations to the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection embodied, respectively, in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 86. The Court emphasizes that, in its application, in its brief with observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State, and in its final oral and written arguments, the Commission had indicated that the Court should determine the international responsibility of the State for the facts “subsequent to the date of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction.” In this regard, the Commission indicated that the State was responsible for “not having conducted an exhaustive investigation to discover the whereabouts of the [alleged] victims; [not] having identified, prosecuted and punished those responsible; [...not] having guaranteed to their next of kin the right to the truth and to satisfactory reparation; violating the rights to personal integrity, the rights of the family and to a name; denying [... to the alleged] victims their condition as children; [and for] having separated them from their parents and next of kin, and denying them their identity.”