simultaneously arguing that the said judgment violated international treaties with regard to which the Court has jurisdiction.” 42 41. The Court considers that the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives concerning the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention correspond to the examination of the merits of the case and is unable to rule on them in the form of a preliminary objection. The State’s arguments will be taken into account when analyzing whether or not the said convention-based rights were violated. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. D) “Lack of competence ratione temporis of the Court” D.1) Regarding the alleged violations to the detriment of Mr. González Medina Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 42. The State asked the Court to “declare itself incompetent ratione temporis to examine the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives to the detriment of Mr. González Medina, because “these alleged violations were of an instantaneous nature” and they occurred “almost five years before” it accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction. The State argued that, according to the Court’s case law, when a disappearance occurs there are violations of an instantaneous nature and others of a continuing nature, and that those relating to the rights established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 13, 8 and 25 of the Convention “are of an instantaneous nature with regard to the alleged victim.” The alleged acts of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. González Medina and the denial of this detention or the refusal to provide information about his whereabouts “had begun to be executed, been completed, and had caused their effects” before the date on which it accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, because “it is presumed that the alleged victim has been dead at least since May 26, 1995.” The State asserted that “it is almost impossible, first, that the alleged victim survived more than six months without appropriate medical care, because he suffered from epilepsy and had a brain tumor and, second, that he was kept captive for more than a year in such a small country, especially in a case that acquired national notoriety.” 43 43. The representatives argued that the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine the alleged violations that are of a continuing nature to the detriment of Mr. González Medina.” They indicated that the factor which determines the continuing or permanent nature of forced disappearance stems from the fact that it persists until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are discovered and the facts have been elucidated. Regarding the presumption of death, they stated that the criteria established by the Court in the judgment in the case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico are applicable. 44. The Inter-American Commission argued that the Court “is competent ratione temporis to rule on all the violations alleged in the application to the detriment of Narciso 42 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 221, para.18. 43 Based on the principle of equality between the parties, the Court finds that the additional arguments included by the State in its final written arguments, that differ from those submitted when raising the preliminary objection in its answering brief, and which are not designed to respond to any argument of the Commission or the representatives in their observations on the preliminary objections, are time-barred and therefore inadmissible. 16