-7facts or acts subsequent to or which commenced after that date. Consequently, the Court decided that it would not rule on the alleged forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, which was alleged to have occurred in June 1982 and, accordingly, on any of the allegations that support violations related to this disappearance. IV PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 27. The Court considers it necessary to establish that, even though it will not rule on the alleged violation of the Convention by El Salvador with regard to some of the facts affirmed by the Commission concerning the alleged forced disappearance of the children, it will take into consideration the facts described to the extent that is necessary to contextualize the alleged violations that took place after June 6, 1995, the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. 28. The foregoing considerations concerning the alleged forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz are necessary because, in the domestic sphere in El Salvador, there is a criminal case before the Chalatenango Trial Court “against members of the Atlacatl Battalion” to investigate what happened to the Serrano Cruz sisters. Regarding the crime under investigation, the Court has noted that, in El Salvador at the time of the facts described in the application, the crime of forced disappearance was not typified and that, in the internal case file, different criminal categories are mentioned such as “removal from personal care (sustracción del cuidado personal) of the children, Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano” and “abduction”; moreover, in the international proceeding, the State has indicated that it is investigating “the crime of deprivation of liberty of the children, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano.” When ruling on the facts or acts that occurred after June 6, 1995, including those related to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the Court will sometimes have to refer to what is being investigated in that proceeding; however, it should not be understood that it is ruling on State responsibility for what happened prior to June 6, 1995, because it lacks jurisdiction to do so. 29. In addition, the internal armed conflict that took place in El Salvador from 1980 to 1991 is a historical fact that is not disputed. Consequently, the Court considers it necessary to emphasize that, without ruling on the alleged forced disappearance of the children, Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz, it will take into account the said armed conflict and the alleged facts described by the parties to the extent necessary to place the instant case in context. V EVIDENCE 30. Before examining the evidence provided, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure which have been developed in its case law and are applicable to this case. 31. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence