17 that there was no possibility of obtaining prompt and due justice. Added to this, the amnesty laws, even though they entered into force in 1995, continue to be a constant threat to obtaining justice in this case”; and iv) “After considering the validity of the Salvadoran State’s declaration on jurisdiction, [they requested the Court] to determine that, in such serious cases as this one, the fact that the Salvadoran State imposed a temporal limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction was an affront to the object and purpose of the American Convention”. c) In their final arguments on preliminary objections, the representatives stated that: i) According to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is not possible to introduce reservations to a treaty after it has been signed, ratified, accepted or adopted. Also, the Convention establishes the terms under which the optional clause of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction can be accepted. In other words, contrary to what El Salvador stated in its final oral arguments, it is not the role of the States to choose the terms under which they recognize the Court’s jurisdiction, as in the case of the formulation of reservations to a treaty, notwithstanding the latter cannot be contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty. There is a difference between the concepts of a reservation to and a limitation of the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction; ii) The limitation to the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction introduced by the State “is invalid, because it does not comply with any of the conditions established in the American Convention”. Article 62(2) thereof specifically establishes the conditions that may be introduced into this recognition; iii) El Salvador alleged that its recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction is in accordance with Article 62(2) of the Convention. However, the State “contradicted itself when it specified which of the conditions it fell within.” Initially it indicated that the limitation applied to “specific cases” and, subsequently, it only indicated that “the reservation” was made on the condition of reciprocity and indefinitely. It is clear that the limitation of the recognition of jurisdiction whose validity is being discussed does not refer to the condition of reciprocity or the time period. It should also be emphasized that “[t]he introduction of the condition of ‘specific cases’ in Article 62(2) was intended to enable the States to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction for explicit cases; namely, cases in which, both the subjects and the object of the dispute were known. In contrast, the limitation to the recognition of jurisdiction introduced by El Salvador refers to a “type” of violations; specifically, those arising from acts which commenced before June 6, 1995, even though they continue being committed after that date.” The State “does not specify the identity of the wronged subject in these cases, nor the rights that are allegedly violated, so that it cannot be considered that it refers to specific cases”;