perpetrated in 1980, while the representatives and the Commission alleged that neither the circumstances of Mr. Bedregal's death nor his whereabouts have yet been clarified, so he would be the victim of Forced Disappearance with effects continuing over time. 20. This Court has held from its earliest cases 10 that the disappearance of persons involves multiple and continuing violation of several rights recognized in the Convention and in general international law, which States are obliged to respect and guarantee. Likewise, the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (1992) includes several principles of international law on the matter, which can be invoked pursuant to Article 29(d) of the American Convention. Specifically, Article 17(1) states that "[a]cts constituting Forced Disappearance shall be considered a continuing offence as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and the whereabouts of persons who have disappeared and these facts remain unclarified." 11 The foregoing means that the violation of the rights affected as a result of the Forced Disappearance may extend continuously or permanently until the fate or whereabouts of the victim are established. These principles were later taken up by treaties such as the aforementioned Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted within the United Nations framework. Both instruments were duly ratified by Bolivia. 21. In the instant case, the Court notes that the characterization of the conduct perpetrated on July 17, 1980, and its continuing effects are part of the dispute in this process. Therefore, before determining the sources of the applicable international obligations and how long they have been in force for Bolivia, the Court must examine the facts and evaluate the evidence on the record. 22. In conclusion, the resolution of the preliminary objections pm ratione temporis and ratione materiae articulated by the State in relation to the Court's jurisdiction depends on the determination of the facts that will be part of the analysis in the merits of this Judgment and, therefore, it is not appropriate to address it at the stage of preliminary objections. 23. Regarding the Court's alleged lack of jurisdiction by reason of time in relation to the judgment issued on April 15, 1993, in the cumulative Suits for Damages followed by the Public Prosecutor and its interveners against Luis García Meza Tejada and his collaborators, this Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives have requested any ruling on the process or the judgment in question. Therefore, it considers that the objection is unfounded, without prejudice to which – as it has done previously – the Court may refer to said judgment as a fact "with the sole purpose of providing a context for the examination of the alleged violations." 12 B. Preliminary objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the request for reparation B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 10 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 149 and 150; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 189. Series C No. 5, paras. 157 and 158; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 6, para. 147, and Case of Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 129. 11 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 47/133 of December 18, 1992, article 17.1. 12 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008, Series C No. 186, paras. 108 and 109. 8