establishment of the person’s whereabouts or the identification of his remains, and not the presumption of his decease. 34 32. In this regard, the Court has already established that it is competent to examine violations of a continuing or permanent nature that commenced before the defendant State had accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, and that persist following this acceptance, because they continue to be committed and, thus, the principle of non-retroactivity is not infringed. 35 The same criterion applies for the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. In previous cases with regard to Peru, the Court has already declared violations of this international treaty, even though the commencement of the facts occurred before the date on which the treaty entered into force for the State. 36 33. Thus, pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the obligations of the treaty are in effect for Peru only as of the date on which it entered into force for the State (supra para. 14) and, consequently, are applicable to those acts that constitute violations of a continuing or permanent nature; in other words, those that occurred before the entry into force of the treaty and persisted even after that date, because they continue to be perpetrated, as well as those independent acts that, during any proceedings could constitute specific and autonomous violations relating to denial of justice, 37 which, in this case, can be examined in light of the obligations assumed under the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. To argue otherwise would be equal to depriving the treaty and the guarantee of protection that it establishes of their practical effects, 38 with negative consequences for the presumed victims in the exercise of their right of access to justice. 34. However, the Court notes that Peru has questioned the existence of the supposed enforced disappearance and, thus, the eventual application of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (supra para. 24). In this regard, the Court observes that this allegation is no longer a preliminary objection but constitutes an element related to the merits of the dispute; therefore, it is not appropriate to analyze it in this section. 34 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 59, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 195. 35 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, paras. 65 and 66, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 24. 36 In the Case of Gómez Palomino, which concerned the disappearance of Santiago Gómez Palomino on July 9, 1992, the Court considered that “the State has not complied with the obligations imposed on it by Article 2 of the American Convention in order to ensure adequately the rights to life, personal liberty, and personal integrity of Santiago Gómez Palomino, and by Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance.” Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 110. Also, in the Case of Anzualdo Castro, which concerned the disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro on December 16, 1993, the Court declared “that the State is responsible for the forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, perpetrated in the context of a systematic practice of this type of gross violation of human rights, promoted, practiced and tolerated by State agents at the time of the facts. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and juridical personality, recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(6), 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and to Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance.” Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 103. 37 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 84, and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 43. 38 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 24. 15