34 105. This principle establishes that the Court cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare that its norms have been violated when the alleged facts or conduct of the defendant State that could involve international responsibility precede acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. 106. Consequently, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and declare violations to the Convention in two different situations: when the facts that produced a violation are subsequent to the date of acceptance of its jurisdiction, or in the case of a continuing or permanent violation that persists after the acceptance, even though it began before it.28 107. Also, when interpreting the Convention in accordance with its object and purpose, the Court must do so in a way that preserves the integrity of the mechanism established in Article 62(1) of the Convention. It would be inadmissible to subordinate this mechanism to constraints that render ineffectual the system to protect human rights established in the Convention and, consequently, the Court’s jurisdictional function.29 108. In view of the above, the Court considers it necessary to establish that although the facts presented by the Inter-American Commission as background material took placed prior to March 25, 1999, some of these facts could persist after the date on which the state accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court (supra para. 4), a situation which the Court will examine in this case. VIII PROVEN FACTS 109. The Court considers proven the facts that form part of the background and context of this case which it is considering in the exercise of its competence. These facts are described below: Background SOCIAL CONTEXT 109(1) The first important migrations of Haitians towards the Dominican Republic took place in the first third of the twentieth century when around 100,000 persons went to work on the sugar plantations in that country. The Dominican mills were originally in the hands of private companies and, later, most of them were transferred to the control of the State Sugar Council (CEA). Many Haitian migrants went to live permanently in the Dominican Republic, formed a family in that country, and now live there with their children and grandchildren (second and third 28 Cf. the Case of Moiwana community, supra note 8, paras. 38 and 39; the Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections, supra note 7, paras. 64 and 65, and Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 79. 29 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections, supra note 7, para. 68; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 12, para. 128, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 19.