place following the date of this acceptance. In addition, the Court also has competence to examine human rights violations of a continuous or permanent nature, even though the initial violation took place before the date on which the Court’s contentious jurisdiction was accepted, if such violations persisted after this acceptance, because they continue to be committed. 13 17. Consequently, the Court notes that Guatemala accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. The Court also notes that, both the Commission and the representatives have indicated that they are not asking the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for facts prior to March 9, 1987. In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had submitted to the Court “the State’s acts and omissions that occurred or continued to occur after March 9, 1987,” which included “the forced disappearance of three persons who were last seen during the events of April 29 and 30, 1982, in the custody of the State; the forced displacement of 1,498 survivors of the massacre and their 111 family members, and the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of the next of kin of the victims of the massacre, of the victims of forced disappearance and their next of kin, and of all the surviving victims.” Taking this into account, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to examine the facts and the presumed human rights violations submitted to the Court by the Commission and, in particular: (i) the alleged forced disappearances that began during the massacre; (ii) the alleged forced displacement; (iii) the alleged violation of the rights of the family and of the child; (iv) the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and also (v) the alleged violation of personal integrity. 18. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its consistent case law regarding its jurisdiction ratione temporis and, given the specific arguments cited by the State, rejects the preliminary objection. V PRELIMINARY MATTER 19. The Commission noted the difficulties that existed to identify all the alleged victims, including both those who died and also their surviving and displaced family members, and stressed the following: (a) the magnitude of the violence used by the army during the massacre and subsequent displacement; (b) the destruction by fire of most of the homes in the village; (c) the fact that many people were burnt to death; (d) the fact that, of the 19 skeletons recovered from the mass grave, it was only possible to identify one precisely, and (e) the rural context of the village of Los Josefinos at the time of the events, with high rates of illiteracy and an absence of official records of births and deaths. 20. In addition, it pointed out that various acts and omissions by the State had created additional obstacles that made it impossible to identify all the alleged victims. Consequently, and taking into account the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State in the procedure before the Commission and that the evidence provided by the petitioners had not been contested, the Commission considered that this was sufficient to prove the existence and identity of the alleged victims. It also considered it necessary to add to the list of alleged victims two children who had not been included by the petitioners, based on the evidence that supported the payment of reparations by the State. Lastly, it deemed it pertinent to recommend the need for the State to ensure a mechanism for the full identification of the alleged victims in this case. 21. The representatives agreed with the Commission and indicated that the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure was applicable to this case. They also asked that the Court Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Judgment of July 22, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 20. 13 8