12 a) The “instrument ratifying recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court,” deposited by El Salvador with the OAS General Secretariat on June 6, 1995, accepts the Court’s jurisdiction “for an indefinite term, in conditions of reciprocity and with the express reservation that, in the cases in which it recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction, this is only and exclusively for subsequent juridical facts and acts, or juridical facts and acts which commenced after the date on which the declaration of recognition [of this jurisdiction] was deposited.” This “reservation” excludes from the Court’s jurisdiction the juridical facts and acts that preceded the date when this declaration was deposited or which commenced before that date. The facts of the instant case took place before the date on which the declaration was deposited and, even if it is considered that they constitute a continuing violation, the commencement of this violation also occurred before the declaration was deposited. In other words, “the reservation made to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court excludes from the Court’s jurisdiction not only the juridical facts and acts that are not subsequent to the date on which the declaration of recognition was deposited, but also continuing violations that commenced before the Court’s jurisdiction was recognized; b) If the Court applied the principles it used in the Blake case, it would have jurisdiction to hear effects and acts subsequent to “El Salvador’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court in June 1995.” However, the Court is not able to consider them [in this case], because the commencement of these effects and acts is not subsequent to June 1995; c) Should the Court consider that the facts in this case refer to a continuing and permanent violation, it bears in mind that, “internationally, there has been no developments in this regard. To the contrary, as can be observed from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the jurisdiction of that Court has been limited […]. The development in contrario sensu establishes clear respect for abiding by the law of treaties, as well as non-recognition of retroactive jurisdictions and considering subsequent facts only”; d) “Should forced disappearance have occurred, the alleged capture of the Serrano Cruz sisters took place on June 2, 1982. This means that it is clearly an event that occurred before the date on which El Salvador deposited the declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction, [so] it cannot be considered or decided by the Inter-American Court.” The alleged continuing violation “does not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction either […,] because the alleged violation commenced in 1982, and not subsequent to the date on which El Salvador deposited its declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction – on June 6, 1995; consequently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not have jurisdiction to consider and rule on alleged continuing violations concerning facts which commenced prior to that date”; e) “Nor can the Court consider the alleged failure to investigate that is attributed to the jurisdictional bodies, since this falls under the concept of the alleged forced disappearance and forms part of the continuing violations, the onset of which was not subsequent to the date on which El Salvador deposited its declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction”;