this Act. 2.3 On the basis of an application filed on 19 June 1984, the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) opened investigation files on the disappearances of L. M. E. (CONADEP file No. 5448), L. E. (No. 5449) and C. E. (No. 5450). The whereabouts of the disappeared persons, however, could not be established. 2.4 Article 6 of the Finality Act specifically provides that "The extinction of penal action pursuant to article 1 does not affect civil proceedings". 2.5 The author has not instituted civil proceedings to obtain compensation. 2.6 Under article 4037 of the Argentinian Civil Code, the statutory time-limit for instituting civil proceedings is two years. This period runs from the date of the alleged violation. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the enactment of the Finality Act and the Due Obedience Act constitute violations by Argentina of its obligations under article 2 of the Covenant, in particular "to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant" (art. 2, para. 2), "to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy ..." (art. 2, para. 3 (a)) and "to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities ... and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy" (art. 2, para. 3 (b)). 3.2 The author claims in particular that the disappearance of her children was never fully investigated. She requests that the inquiries be reopened. The State party's observations 4.1 The State party points out that the disappearances took place in 1976 during the period of military government, 10 years prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina. 4.2 With respect to the temporal application of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol, the State party submits that the general rule for all juridical norms is non-retroactivity. In the specific area of treaty law, a firmly established international practice leads to the same conclusion. Both the Permanent Court of International Justice (Series A/B, No. 4, 24) and the International Court of Justice (I.C.J. Reports 1952. 40) have maintained that a treaty has to be considered as having a retroactive effect only when this intention is explicitly stated in the treaty or may be clearly inferred from its provisions. The validity of the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties was enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which entered into force on 27 January 1980), article 28 of which codifies this rule of customary international law: 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 70