that the preliminary objection was founded and “the application presented by the Inter-American Commission was inadmissible in this regard.” 25. The Commission affirmed that the Court has temporal competence to rule on the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons in this case. In this regard, it argued that, in the case of García and family members v. Guatemala, Radilla Pacheco et al. v. Mexico, and Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, the Court had declared the violation of Article I of the said Convention “in the understanding that, at the time it entered into force, the violation continued to be committed.” This was because, in the said cases, the start of the execution of the enforced disappearance had occurred when the Convention had not been adopted or had not entered into force for the State. In the instant case, it stated that the said instrument had been in force for at least 11 years, and the disappearance had not ceased. In this regard, it argued that the Court had competence to rule on non-compliance with the obligation not to practice the enforced disappearance of persons, established in Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as of the moment at which this instrument entered into force for Peru. In addition, it indicated that the Court has competence to rule on the obligation, established in Article I of the said instrument, to investigate, adequately and effectively, enforced disappearances that occur under the State’s jurisdiction. 26. The representatives indicated that, in its consistent case law since 1988, the Court “has established the permanent or continuing nature of the enforced disappearance of persons, which has been recognized repeatedly by international human rights law.” In addition, they recalled that the Court had defined enforced disappearance even before the definition contained in the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. In this regard, they argued that, taking into account that Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been detained by members of an Army patrol on April 28, 1991, without his whereabouts supposedly being known at the present time, the continuing nature of the supposed enforced disappearance still remains to date. Thus, since this is a continuing or permanent violation, the Court is competent to examine the violations of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Consequently, they asked the Court to declare that the preliminary objection presented by the State was unfounded. B.2. Considerations of the Court 27. The Court reiterates that, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the power inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). 24 The instruments accepting the optional clause on the binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presume the acceptance by the States that present them of the Court’s right to decide any dispute relating to its jurisdiction. 25 28. In the instant case, the objections filed by the State specifically question the temporal competence of the Court in relation to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons by affirming that the Court is unable to exercise its contentious competence in order to declare a violation of the provisions of this international instrument with regard to events prior to its entry into force for a State. In particular, in this case, violations of Articles I(a) and (b), and III of this instrument were alleged. 24 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence, supra, para. 78, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 24. 25 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence, supra, para. 34, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 19. 13