the real or probable date of the victim’s death. In other words, the situation encountered in the case of Heliodoro Portugal, that the remains had been found and identified, is not present in this case, where the whereabouts of Mr. Gonzalez Medina have not been discovered, and his remains have not been identified. 53. Lastly, the Court recalls that even though it must analyze the alleged forced disappearance with an integral perspective that covers all the facts submitted to its consideration, 60 and determine whether they have persisted over time, 61 it can declare a violation of the American Convention or other treaties as of the date that the defendant State accepted its jurisdiction. 54. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the first part of the preliminary objection on lack of competence ratione temporis in relation to the fact of the alleged forced disappearance and the alleged violations to the detriment of Mr. González Medina, so that it is competent to rule in this regard as of March 25, 1999, the date on which the Dominican Republic accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. D.2) Regarding the alleged violations to the detriment of the alleged victim’s family Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 55. The Dominican Republic argued that the Court lacks competence ratione temporis to examine the facts on which the alleged violations to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family are based and that, regarding the investigations, it cannot consider facts that took place before the date on which it accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. It indicated that the alleged violation of Article 13 “would have been of an instantaneous nature,” and that the “facts that allegedly prevented access to the information concerning the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina to the detriment of his family” took place before March 25, 1999. It addition, it asserted that “all the facts” alleged with regard to the supposed violation of the family’s integrity took place before the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and were of an instantaneous nature. Regarding the alleged violations to the detriment of Amaury González Ramírez, it indicated that, when the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction was accepted, he was 20 years old.” 56. The representatives indicated that the State’s arguments disregard the “continuing or permanent nature of the violations alleged with regard to the victim’s family,” and that “the preliminary objection filed by the State cannot be examined without entering into considerations that form part of the debate on the merits of this case.” Additionally, they indicated that, concerning the right of access to information, “the family of [Mr. González Medina] was never provided with an official copy of the investigation conducted by the Police Board” and that “this refusal of documents continues up until today.” They added that the State’s obligation to replace and reconstruct the information incinerated and destroyed by State officials “remains in effect today.” Furthermore, the representatives asserted that 60 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 59, para. 112, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 84. 61 In order to analyze the alleged act of forced disappearance, the Court will assess the evidence provided by the parties and the Commission that has been admitted and the helpful evidence that was requested, so that the State’s request that the evidence related to the domestic investigations, which took place before the said acceptance of jurisdiction, is inadmissible (infra para. 78). Furthermore, to analyze the alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 7, 5, 4 and 3 of the American Convention by an effective investigation into what happened to Mr. González Medina, the Court will take into consideration the facts relating to the investigations as of the date that the Dominican Republic accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. 20