20 75. The State argued that: a) The alleged violation of the rights of the Yean and Bosico children occurred on March 5, 1997, and the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999; namely, two years after the alleged violation; b) The Court has established that it cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention when the alleged facts occur before the Court’s jurisdiction has been accepted, and c) Although the State did not invoke this preliminary objection at the due moment, the Commission did invoke it opportunely, and the Court should therefore rule on it. Arguments of the Commission 76. The Commission did not refer to this preliminary objection. Arguments of the representatives 77. The representatives stated in their final oral arguments during the public hearing that the State’s attempt to file a new preliminary objection was time-barred. Considerations of the Court 78. With regard to the argument of the State concerning the Inter-American Court’s alleged lack of competence rationae temporis to hear the facts of this case that occurred on March 5, 1997, before the State accepted its contentious jurisdiction, the Court reiterates that, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the power inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence, because by accepting its jurisdiction the States undertake to accept the Court’s right to decide any dispute concerning its jurisdiction12 according to the provisions of Article 62(1) of the American Convention. Consequently, the Court will take into consideration both the date of acceptance of its contentious jurisdiction by the Dominican Republic, and the principle of non-retroactivity, established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in order to determine the scope of its competence in this case (infra paras. 100 to 108 and 132). 79. In view of the above, the Court rejects the third preliminary objection filed by the State. VI EVIDENCE 12 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 68; Case of Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 33, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 34.