21 case. Therefore, according to the provisions of the said Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court may consider acts and facts that have taken place after the date of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction and situations which, at that date, had not ceased to exist. In other words, the Court has jurisdiction to consider continuing violations that persist after this recognition, based on the provisions of the said Article 28 and, consequently, the principle of nonretroactivity is not violated. 66. The Court cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare that its provisions have been violated when the alleged facts or the conduct of the defendant State which might involve international responsibility precede recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. 67. However, in case of a continuing or permanent violation, whose commencement occurred before the defendant State had recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction and which persists even after this recognition, the Court is competent to consider the conducts that occurred after the recognition of its jurisdiction and the effects of the violations.8 68. When interpreting the Convention pursuant to its object and purpose, the Court must act so as to preserve the integrity of the mechanism established in Article 62(1) of the Convention. It would be inadmissible to subordinate this mechanism to restrictions that render inoperative the system for the protection of human rights established in the Convention and, consequently, the jurisdictional function of the Court.9 69. As in other cases, the Court also reiterates that the clause on recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction is essential to the effectiveness of the international protection mechanism and must be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee it establishes is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties and their collective implementation. Moreover, regarding the principle of effet utile, it has said that: The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction.10 8 Cf. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 79; and Blake case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40. 9 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. case. Competence, supra note 6, para. 128; Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin et al. case, supra note 6, para. 19; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 69; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 73; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 82. 10 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. case. Competence, supra note 6, para. 66; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 74; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 74; Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 83; the Constitutional Court case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. Also, Cf., inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 150 and 151; and Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 142. Likewise, Cf. Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and