facts, insofar as it indicated that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the actions or omissions of the State concerning the forced disappearance of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite; the failure to investigate and punish with regard to the facts that affected their children, Anatole and Victoria; and the lack of adequate reparation. 25. In this regard, the Court recalls that the ongoing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons has been repeatedly recognized by international human rights law, in the sense that the act of disappearance and its execution begin with the deprivation of liberty of the person and the subsequent lack of information about their fate, and it continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known or their remains are identified with certainty. 22 Accordingly, the Court is competent to analyze the arguments of the representative and the Commission regarding the forced disappearance of Julien Cáceres and Grisonas Andrijauskaite. 26. As for the representative’s argument regarding the ongoing nature of the forced disappearance of Anatole and Victoria, the Court notes that because their whereabouts have been established by their biological grandmother and in view of the agreement that she reached with their adoptive parents, expressed in the document of August 2, 1979, the Court notes that both persons have recovered their identities and reestablished ties with their blood family. According to this account, Anatole and Victoria were informed of their identities and origin in a timely fashion; they met the rest of their biological relatives; and, being minors, they were asked which surnames they wanted to adopt, and opted to keep those of their adoptive parents (infra paras. 97 and 98). 23 Therefore, in accordance with the criteria used by this Court in previous cases, the forced disappearance of which Anatole and Victoria were victims ceased when the truth about their identity was revealed to them and, in turn, they were provided with the de facto and de jure opportunity to recover their true identities and the family bond with their blood relatives, which did in fact take place with the agreement signed on August 2, 1979. 24 Consequently, given the date on which both forced disappearances ceased, the Court lacks competence ratione temporis to rule on the matter. 27. Additionally, the Court notes that because they amount to separate violations, the alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT due to "lack of investigation and punishment" of the facts affecting Anatole and Victoria do fall within the Court’s temporal competence, dating from Argentina’s ratification of the aforementioned international instrument. 25 Outside of these elements, the Court lacks jurisdiction regarding allegations of the violation of the ICPPT, particularly with regard to the commission of acts of torture, since they took place before the State ratified this international instrument or the American Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 155, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 62. 23 The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted in 1981 that “two Uruguayan children, aged one and four years old, who had been abducted in Buenos Aires […] appeared three months later abandoned […] in Valparaíso, Chile,” and added that “[t]he real identity of the children was revealed in 1979, following a search by their grandparents.” Cf. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, January 22, 1981, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1435, par. 172. Also see, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, December 31, 1981, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1492, par. 41, and Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, December 9, 1983, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/21, par. 28. 24 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 51, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 89. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances agrees with this view. Cf. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on children and enforced disappearances, February 14, 2013, UN Doc. A/HRC/WGEID/98/1, pars. 9 and 10. 25 Cf. Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, par. 18; Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, par. 34, and Case of Montesinos Mejia v. Ecuador, supra, par. 19. 22 10