6 “does not apply to continuous crimes,” stating that from the time of Mr. Blake's arrest by the El Llano Civil Self-Defense Patrol on March 28, 1985, he had been disappeared until June 14, 1992, the date on which his remains were discovered. Accordingly, Mr. Blake's disappearance had been in effect “for a period of time that exceeded by more than five years the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court -March 9, 1987- by the State of Guatemala.” According to the Commission, the continuous effect of the disappearance is illustrated in the instant case by “the concealment of Mr. Blake's remains, the cover-up of the perpetrators and accomplices, the authorities' total indifference and lack of information about the events, and the lasting consequences that this tragic situation has had on Mr. Blake's family.” VI 25. The second objection is that of “[i]ncompetence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by reason of the subject,” claimed by the Government “on the grounds that the events on which the application is based do not violate any of the human rights and freedoms recognized by the American Convention,” inasmuch as they constitute an unlawful common criminal act for which the State cannot be held responsible on the grounds that members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols are agents of the State. With regard to the links between the Civil Patrols and the Army, the Government contends that “[i]t is natural for the Civil Patrols to have close ties to the National Army as far as the anti-subversion struggle is concerned... but one may not blithely conclude from this that their members belong to, or have the same duties as, the Armed Forces and that they are Agents of the Guatemalan State.” Consequently, if some of the members of those Patrols commit crimes, “their responsibility is direct and individual” since their membership of a Civil Patrol “grants them neither immunities nor privileges, nor exemptions of any kind.” 26. The Commission asserts that the Government, in its second objection, raises a matter relating to the merits of the case before the Court; that establishing whether the alleged events constitute a violation of the Convention will depend on the evidence supplied by the parties and that, therefore, “it will be based on different objectives and criteria to those the Court should apply to determine its competence at this introductory or preliminary stage.” The Commission reiterates that the Court is competent to try the instant case because the acts imputed to the State affect rights protected by the Convention, inasmuch as, under International Law, a State incurs responsibility when acts that constitute a violation are attributable to it; in other words, when “[s]uch acts are committed by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons connected with it, or with its acquiescence.” Likewise, the State is responsible “if it does not investigate or repress acts that may constitute a violation of internationally protected rights.” The Commission contends that Guatemala has not met its obligation to control paramilitary groups operating within its national territory, that the Statute of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols places them under the Ministry of Defense, and that they are armed, trained and supervised by the Army, so that “they act as agents of the Guatemalan State.” VII 27. Concerning the third preliminary objection, the Government maintains that the InterAmerican Commission violates Article 29(d) of the Convention in its attempt to exclude or limit the effect of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. It alleges a “distorted interpretation” of the human rights recognized in the Convention, one totally