60. Lastly, regarding the State’s request that the Court refrain from ruling on the facts on which the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of the family are based, the Court finds it pertinent to admit this request with regard to the alleged request made through the “Truth Commission” to have “access to the records of the […] investigation” of the Police Board, because this fact occurred prior to the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. 65 61. Taking into account everything decided in this chapter concerning the preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione temporis, the Court admits this objection partially, in the terms of paragraphs 58 to 60, and rejects it in the terms of paragraphs 45 to 54. Consequently, this Court is competent to examine and rule on the alleged forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina and the alleged violations to his detriment as of the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and on the alleged facts that occurred after that acceptance with regard to the alleged violations to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family. IV COMPETENCE 62. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because the Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999. On January 29, 1987, the Dominican Republic ratified the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Court admits partially the preliminary objection on lack of competence of the Court ratione temporis in the terms of paragraphs 58 to 61 of this judgment. V PROVISIONAL MEASURES 63. On August 30, 2011, the Court issued an order in which it required the State to adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mario José Martín Suriel Núñez, 66 who was a witness before the Court and is a member of the civil society organization “Truth Commission.” The said measures remain in force. VI EVIDENCE 65 According to the body of evidence, this request for information had been made in a meeting with the Head of the National Police between the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995. Cf. Letter of the “Truth Commission” organization dated February 22, 1995, to the Head of the National Police (file of attachments to the application, attachment 12, folio 3827) and testimony of Rafael Oscar Bencosme Candelier of June 8, 1998, before the Joint Board of the Armed Forces and the National Police (hereinafter the “Joint Board”) (file of attachments to the application, attachment 13, folios 3915 and 3917). 66 Cf. Case of González Medina and family. Provisional measures with regard to the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011. 22