of the right not to be tortured and the right not to be arbitrarily detained and the right to work, as claimed by the Applicant. 136. In configuration of his cause of action, the Applicant alleges that he was detained and tortured between April 1993 and December 1994 and that in 1996 he was notified by the Chief of Staff of a decision that determined his retirement from the army as a disciplinary measure, delivered in March 1993. 137. He affirms that he was released on December 22, 1994 and that he was retired from his duties in 1996. 138. These facts, as pleaded by the Applicant, demonstrate with precision in time, the moment in which the alleged interferences in the alleged human rights of the Applicant took place, and from them does not result in any situation of a "continuous” violation of alleged human rights. Therefore, “instantaneous” acts which were exhausted in their practice, long before this Court was vested with jurisdiction to judge the violation of human rights perpetrated in the Member States. 139. Thus, based on the aforementioned, this Court considers that it does not have ratione temporis jurisdiction to hear the instant case, and must, therefore, reject it. X – Costs 140. The Applicant did not present any claim regarding expenses. 141. The Respondent, in turn, seeks from the Court to order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings. 142. Article 66 (1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure provides that “The judgment or order that ends the process decides on expenses.” 143. Paragraph 2 of the same Article states that “The unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs if so decided.” 25