4 8. The State pointed out that it recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995, and that paragraph 2 of said acknowledgment provided as follows: The Government of El Salvador, in acknowledging jurisdiction, states that acceptance thereof is made […] with the caveat that [...] the cases where [...] jurisdiction is acknowledged may solely and exclusively involve legal acts and events that are subsequent to, or legal acts and events whose performance or occurrence commenced after [...] the date of the deposit of this Declaration of Acceptance, […] Therefore, the State maintained that its declaration and “reservation” have a broader scope than that asserted by the Court. Further, it stated that the "reservation" is aimed at excluding "the legal acts or events whose performance or occurrence commenced before [...] the established deadline […], and that produce effects after such date […], since their main characteristic is that they commenced before [the date of acceptance] and continue over time as a consequence of the initial act. These legal acts or events may not be isolated as they cannot stand on their own without being based upon the main event, which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court”. In this regard, the State requested a clarification as to the criteria used by the Court to hold an event to be “independent” or a “specific violation”, since the facts the Court decided to rule on result from the same issue over which the Court determined it had no jurisdiction. 9. The Commission noted that, in the Judgment, despite acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction regarding the death of Mr. García-Prieto, the Court considered that “during the course of a legal proceeding –which is only one composed of various stagesindependent events may take place that [may] constitute separate and specific violations that [may involve] a denial of justice”. The Commission stated that the Court “considered the arguments submitted by the parties […] and ruled on them in [the J]udgment”. Therefore, it held that “the request of the State is aimed at challenging the decision of the Court and does not constitute a proper request for interpretation of the Judgment.” 10. The representatives stated that El Salvador did not request any clarification of obscure or unclear points in the Judgment; on the contrary, the State “seeks to have the Tribunal’s decision about its jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear the matter before it reversed”. Therefore, the representatives requested that the State’s request be dismissed on the grounds that it was using the request for interpretation as a means of challenging the decision and, consequently, it submitted to the consideration of the Court issues of fact and of law on which the Court had already rendered a decision. 11. The Court held in the Judgment on the merits that: 43. The Court has already explained that a legal proceeding –that is only one composed of various stages- independent events may arise which may constitute specific and separate violations involving a denial of justice. 44. Therefore, the time limitation set by the State in recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court lacks any effects regarding any independent events that may amount to specific violations within the jurisdiction ratione temporis. 45. The Court has jurisdiction to examine, in the light of the content of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, the acts or omissions occurred during the course of police or judicial proceedings, and that may be characterized as “separate events” and that occurred within the jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court; i.e. after June 6, 1995. […]