20 “Recognition of the jurisdiction” of the Court […] is a unilateral act of each State, qualified by the terms of the American Convention as a whole and, therefore, not subject to reservations. Although some legal doctrine speaks of “reservations” to the recognition of an international court’s jurisdiction, in fact this refers to limitations to the recognition of that jurisdiction and not technically to reservations to a multilateral treaty.4 62. The American Convention expressly establishes the authority of the States Parties to establish limitations to the Court’s jurisdiction when declaring that they recognize as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to the provisions of Article 62 thereof. Thus, the instrument in which El Salvador recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction includes a temporal condition to this jurisdiction, which is not technically a reservation to the American Convention. In other words, El Salvador used the authority stipulated in Article 62 of the Convention and established a temporal limitation with regard to cases that might be submitted to the consideration of the Court. 63. The Court must examine the limitations invoked by El Salvador when recognizing the Court’s contentious jurisdiction and determine its competence to consider the different facts of this case. The fact that the OAS member State did not raise any objection to the limitation invoked by El Salvador, as the latter has argued, does not mean that the Court cannot examine this limitation in light of the American Convention.5 To the contrary, the Court, as all organs with jurisdictional functions, has the authority inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The instruments recognizing the optional clause of the compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presume that the State depositing them accept the Court’s right to resolve any dispute relating to its jurisdiction.6 64. Since, according to Article 62(1) of the Convention, the date on which the Court’s jurisdiction is recognized depends on the moment at which the State declares that it 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 the American Convention, the Court must recall the provisions of Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties7, when deciding whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear a case. This article states: Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with regard to that party. 65. The above principle of non-retroactivity applies to the effective exercise of the juridical effects of the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a contentious 4 Cf. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 68; and Cantos case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 34. 5 Cf. Case of Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A No. 132, § 47. 6 Cf. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 69; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 68; and Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 16 and 17. 7 Cf. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, para. 68; and Cantos case. Preliminary objections, supra note 3, paras. 35 and 37.