PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court must concern events which took place at the right point in time and in the right place and must be filed by, and relate to, the right person and involve the right subject matter. Thus, complaints relating to events which took place before entry into force of the Convention in the Contracting Party are inadmissible ratione temporis; complaints relating to events over which the Contracting Party has no jurisdiction, such as in principle those occurring outside its territory are inadmissible ratione loci; complaints by persons who are not victims or which complain about the acts of entities over which the Contracting Party has no jurisdiction, or against States that are not Contracting Parties, are inadmissible ratione personae; complaints claiming the infringement of rights that are not protected by the Convention will be dismissed ratione materiae. There are a number of important exceptions to these general rules particularly concerning continuing violations366 and the liability of Contracting Parties for extraterritorial acts.367 They are explained below. a) Incompatibility Ratione Temporis By virtue of a generally recognised rule of international law, a Contracting Party can only be required to answer to facts and events that occurred subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention and Protocols with regard to the Party in question.368 The Court has held that the Convention “imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date.”369 Accordingly, the Court cannot examine a complaint relating to events that occurred before the ratification of the Convention and Protocols by the respondent State. The case of Kalashnikov v. Russia370 may serve as an example. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill-treatment by Russian special forces in July 1996 while in detention on remand. Considering that the Convention entered into force with respect to Russia on 5 May 1998, the Court observed that the applicant’s complaint related to a period prior to that date. It therefore declared this complaint inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3. Although the Convention can have no retroactive effect, there is an important exception to this general rule. If a complaint relates to a continuing situation, that is to say, a violation of the Convention caused by an act which was committed 366 See e.g. Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), no.15318/89, 23 March 1995, which concerned the applicant’s inability to use her property in Cyprus since 1974. For dates of entry into force of the Convention and Protocols in Contracting Parties, see Textbox i. 367 See e.g. Issa v. Turkey, no. 31821/96, 16 November 2004, which concerned the killing of a number of persons in Iraq, allegedly by members of the Turkish security forces. 368 Nielsen v. Denmark, judgment of 2 September 1959, Yearbook II (1958–1959), p. 412. 369 Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 21 October 2013, § 130, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, 28 September 2004, § 38. 370 Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001. 113