consider the date on which the State accepted its jurisdiction, the terms in which it was accepted, and the principle of non-retroactivity established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.6 37. Argentina accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on September 5, 1984, and indicated in its interpretative declaration that the Court would have competence with regard to “events occurring after ratification” of the American Convention,7 which took place that same day. Based on the foregoing and on the principle of non-retroactivity, in principle, the Court cannot exercise its compulsory jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare a violation of its provisions when the facts alleged or the conduct of the State that may entail its international responsibility occurred prior to this acknowledgement of jurisdiction.8 38. When filing the preliminary objection, the State argued, based on its acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on September 5, 1984, that the facts of the instant case that occurred before this acceptance – such as those that took place in 1980, which resulted in the criminal case, and those alleged as grounds for the claim for compensation under administrative law – fall outside the Court’s competence. 39. The Court notes that, in their arguments contesting this preliminary objection, both the Inter-American Commission and the representative referred to facts or measures taken by the police or the courts, such as: (a) the search of the headquarters of the Murillo Credit Union; (b) the confiscation of diverse documents; (c) Mr. Grande’s arrest and deprivation of liberty from July 29 to August 12, 1980, and (d) all the judicial actions in the criminal proceedings from July 29, 1980, to September 5, 1984, all of which occurred before the State accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court finds that these facts and any others that occurred before the State accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on September 5, 1984, fall outside the Court’s competence. 40. Therefore, the Court is competent to consider only the facts or acts that occurred after September 5, 1984, with regard to the alleged violations. Consequently, it finds that the preliminary objection is founded as regards the facts that took place before that date. recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.” 6 This article stipulates that “[t]he provisions of a treaty will not obligate a party with respect to any act or event that may have occurred before the date of the treaty’s entrance into force for that party or for any situation that at that date has ceased to exist, except where a different intention is taken from the treaty or substantiated in some other manner.” 7 Argentina’s acceptance of jurisdiction on September 5, 1984, indicated that “[t]he Government of the Republic of Argentina accepts the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indefinitely and under the condition of strict reciprocity for cases relating to the interpretation or application of the […] Convention, taking into account the interpretative statements contained in the instrument of ratification as a partial reservation.” Cf. American Convention on Human Rights. Argentina, acceptance of jurisdiction. Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/b32.html; last access August 25, 2011. 8 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, paras. 35 to 37; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, paras. 19 and 20; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 16. 9