9 responsibility for the extrajudicial execution of Heliodoro Portugal, who “was in the custody of State agents” from the date of his detention. The Court observes that, in the instant case, the date of the alleged victim’s death is not know with any certainty and, consequently, it is not know whether his death occurred following the date on which the State accepted the Court’s competence. Nevertheless, and even taking into account the possible errors in the handling of the remains and during the exhumation procedure indicated by the representatives, the Court refers to the reports of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, according to which the analysis of the remains, subsequently identified as belonging to Heliodoro Portugal, allowed it to be concluded that he died at least 20 years before they were found;14 that is, at least 10 years before the State accepted the Court’s competence. Consequently, the Court finds it reasonable to suppose,15 based on the 20 years that have elapsed since his alleged detention in 1970, that, in any event, Heliodoro Portugal died prior to May 9, 1990. 32. Since the Court has elements to presume that the death of Heliodoro Portugal occurred before the date on which Panama accepted its competence, it finds that it is not empowered to rule on his alleged extrajudicial execution, as a violation that is independent of his right to life, particularly since this is a violation of an instantaneous nature. Therefore, the Court declares admissible the preliminary objected filed by the State on this point. Despite the foregoing, the Court finds it pertinent to emphasize that this conclusion does not imply that Mr. Portugal was not extrajudicially executed by State agents, but merely that the Court does not have competence to rule on this allegation. b) Competence ratione temporis regarding the alleged forced disappearance 33. In this case, the Commission and the representatives also alleged that Mr. Portugal was the victim of forced disappearance and that, despite the finding and identification of his remains in 2000, the Court has Competence to examine this alleged violation owing to his continuing or permanent nature. Accordingly, the Court must analyze whether it has competence to rule on the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Portugal. 34. In this regard, the Court finds that, contrary to extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance of persons is characterized by being a violation of a continuing or permanent nature. This means that the Court may rule on an alleged forced disappearance, even if this commenced prior to the date on which the State accepted the Court’s competence provided that this violation is maintained or continues following that date (supra para. 25). Based on this assumption, the Court would have competence to rule on forced disappearance while this violation continued. In this regard, the Court observes that Article III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance establishes that a forced disappearance “shall be deemed continuing or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” Similarly, the Court has indicated previously that “while the whereabouts of 14 Cf. forensic examination of osseous remains N/99-23-724 carried out by the Institute of Forensic Medicine on September 24, 1999 (file of appendixes to the answer to the application, fs. 5535 to 5538) and report of the forensic pathologist of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of September 4, 2001 (file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 and 2, appendix 31, f. 210). 15 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 157 and 188; Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 173; (declaring that “the fact that 8 years and 8 months have elapsed since he was captured, without any news of him, leads the Court to presume that Bámaca Velásquez was executed”) and Enzile Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 54169/00 Eur) Ct. H.R. (2008), paras. 42, 48 and 49 (declaring that “taking into account the fact that no information has come to light concerning his whereabouts for more than ten years - a fact not disputed by the Government - the Court is satisfied that Mehmet Özdemir must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention,” and Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 226, ECHR 2004-III (similarly).