15 State recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as well as those acts and effects of a continuous or permanent violation which began prior to the date of recognition.19 The State raised this same temporal limitation as a preliminary objection. 40. As was already established by this Tribunal, the abovementioned temporal limitation is based upon the authority granted to the States Parties in Article 62 of the Convention. This authority allows those states that recognize the contentious jurisdiction of the Tribunal to temporally limit that jurisdiction. Therefore, this limitation is valid, since it is compatible with this article.20 41. It is now incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine if the facts submitted to it have been excluded by the abovementioned limitation, given that the Court cannot leave it to the States to determine which events have been excluded from the Court’s jurisdiction. This determination is a duty which corresponds to the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdictional attributes.21 42. In the case sub judice there is no dispute among the parties that the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto occurred on June 10, 1994, prior to the State’s recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, and that as a result, this event is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Likewise, the alleged context of violence in which the events occurred lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction.22 43. This Court has already considered that in the course of proceedings, which are considered unitary throughout their several phases,23 autonomous events may arise which may constitute specific and independent instances of a denial of justice which violate the Convention .24 44. As a result, the temporal limitation interposed by the State upon recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court lacks effect with respect to the independent events which may constitute specific violations within the temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 45. The Court has jurisdiction to analyze those acts and omissions which occurred during the judicial and police investigations which may be characterized as “autonomous events”, and which have occurred within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that is to say, subsequent to June 6, 1995. Likewise, the Court will analyze 19 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 16, para. 72. 20 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 16, para. 73. 21 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 16, para. 74. 22 Both the Commission and the representatives indicated in the application and the brief containing pleadings and motions, respectively, that a context of violence existed due to the operation of “illegal armed structures in El Salvador”, and that this context should be considered as part of the factual foundation of the case. 23 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 161: Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 192; and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 159. 24 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 16, para. 84; and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 17, para. 48.