5 12. In paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the Judgment on the Merits, the Court clearly stated that, under its jurisdiction ratione temporis, it has the power to examine the acts or omissions occurred in the instant case after June 6, 1995, which may be characterized as independent events and produce legal effects. The Court has repeatedly explained the difference between reservations to the Convention and the act whereby the jurisdiction of the Court is recognized.6 Similarly, the Court has clearly established the scope of the declaration made by El Salvador and the effects such declaration may have on the jurisdiction of the Court in a specific case.7. Moreover, on several occasions, the Court has held that during the course of the proceedings, independent events may arise that may constitute separate and specific violations involving a denial of justice.8 For instance, a court disregarding the right to defense counsel at all stages of proceedings;9 prohibiting defense attorneys to hold private interviews with their clients, to inspect the records of the case, produce evidence, challenge the opposing party’s evidence and adequately prepare arguments;10 ‘faceless’ judges and prosecutors participating in proceedings,11 subjecting the accused to torture and ill-treatment to obtain a confession;12 failing to inform a foreign defendant of their right to obtain consular assistance,13 and violating the principle of consistency and correspondence between accusation and judgment.14 Based on the considerations above, the Court finds that the Judgment on the Merits is sufficiently clear in this regard. 13. Consequently, the first question raised by the State (supra para. 8) does not satisfy the requirements of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure; therefore, it is rejected by the Court. V OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO MAINTAIN THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT HELD TO BE VICTIMS BY THE COURT IN THE JUDGMENT Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 34; Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo-Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 68; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 61. 7 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 6, paras. 62-84; and Case of García-Prieto et al.; supra note 1, paras. 39-45. 8 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 6, para. 84; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 48. 9 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 117; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 8, para. 48. 10 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 141 and 142, 146-149 and 153-156; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 8, para. 48. 11 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 147; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 8, para. 48. 12 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 104; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 146; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 8, para. 48. 13 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 125; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al.; supra note 8, para. 48. 14 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 65 a 69; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 8, para. 48. 6