the effects resulting from the harm to personal integrity, because of the lack of due diligence of the authorities in finding Mr. González Medina and investigating the facts, “remain today,” and are “effects that are included entirely in the complex nature of forced disappearance, [that] continue over time while the factors of impunity that have been verified persist.” Regarding the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection, they indicated that “[a]lthough […] some of the investigations were initiated before the acceptance of the Inter-American Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, [their] files were incorporated into the proceedings conducted subsequently by the Public Prosecution Service.” They added that “the ineffectiveness of these investigations and the violations that occurred [before the said acceptance] remain intact today, because they have never been rectified.” 57. The Commission stated that the Court is competent to rule on all the violations alleged in the application because “they all continue not only to cause effects but also to be constituted up until today.” The Commission underscored that Narciso González Medina’s family still do not have access to the information on the time the victim spent in different State entities, because “the State continues omitting” to adopt the measures to recover this information. In addition, it indicated that, “by its very nature, the violation of the family’s personal integrity is a continuing violation, the effects of which persist over time,” owing to the State’s acts and omissions. Regarding the alleged violations arising from the domestic investigations and proceedings, the Commission indicated that the facts continue in impunity and the effects of the irregularities and omissions committed by the judicial and extrajudicial authorities in charge of the different investigations continue having serious effects on the right of access to justice Considerations of the Court 58. Regarding the alleged violations to the detriment of Narciso González Medina’s family, the Court is only competent to rule on the facts that took place following the said acceptance of its jurisdiction (supra paras. 46 to 48). The facts on which the said violations are based refer to supposed acts and omissions executed instantaneously and do not form part of the elements that constitute the supposed forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina. Even though the Commission and the representatives argued that the supposed violations have continued over time, this does not mean that they are permanent violations enabling the Court to exercise its binding jurisdiction. This decision is in keeping with this Court’s decisions in previous cases, 62 and does not preclude the Court, when ruling on the merits, to consider whether it is admissible to apply its consistent case law concerning the presumption of the effects that the phenomenon of forced disappearance can cause on the rights of the family of the disappeared person. 63 59. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of Amaury González Ramírez, Narciso González Medina’s son, the Court has verified that, at the time of the said acceptance of jurisdiction, he was no longer a child, because he was 20 years of age. 64 Hence, the Court lacks competence ratione temporis to rule on the State’s alleged responsibility with regard to Article 19. 62 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, supra note 28, paras. 83 and 84, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 53, para. 18. 63 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 53, paras. 161 and 235 al 239, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, paras. 163, 164 and 172. 64 Cf. extract from the birth certificate of Amaury González Ramírez of September 21, 1978, in which his date of birth is recorded as September 4, 1978, supra note 9, folio 5166. 21