33 a) the Court has jurisdiction to examine the facts supporting the purpose of the Commission’s application, which is no other than to request the Court to declare that the State denied Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo the rights to personal liberty, due process, effective judicial protection, and personal safety, by holding him under custody “arbitrarily” and rejecting the innocence remedy attempted in his favour. In like manner, the representatives requested the Court to declare that the State fully accreditated Mr. Martíndel-Campo’s confession which was obtained by means of torture in violation of the prohibition expressly stated in Article 8 of the American Convention and Article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and that it did not duly investigate nor has, to this date, punished all of those responsible for such acts; b) there are, in the instant case, certain events that clearly fall under the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction, since they occurred after December 16, 1998, the date on which the State recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, to wit: the April 29, 1999, decision concerning the recognition of innocence remedy; the decision to dismiss the April 16, 2001, amparo appeal motion and its September 03, 2001, revision; and the closing, by the Prosecutorial Agency, of the investigation of the June 06, 2000, events related to torture which, while reopened on December 26, 2002 and up to April 27, 2004, has not resulted in the prosecution or penal punishment of any of the eleven public officials denounced. c) the different international courts and bodies have recognised ratione temporis jurisdiction regarding the events occurred prior to the recognition of the court’s contentious jurisdiction but which, despite such recognition, prevail over time thus becoming illegal “continued” acts; or that jurisdiction exists when the consequences or effects of such violations persist even after such recognition. d) the Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case concerning a series of events of a “continuous” nature or whose effects have persisted to this date, despite the fact that they occurred prior to the recognition of its contentious jurisdiction. The following are regarded as “continuous” violations: “failure to investigate seriously and effectively acts of torture and other offences denounced” by the alleged victim two days after his arrest; “lack of adjustment of Mexican legislation and practice to international parameters concerning prevention, investigation and punishment for torture;” “illegal and arbitrary imprisonment” of Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo and, lastly, “the serious consequences that all the preceding circumstances have generated concerning the physical and psychological safety of [the alleged victim], as well as the personal safety of his next of kin;” e) Mr. Martín-del-Campo’s detention was based on a “confession obtained under torture” which was, furthermore, carried out without the benefit of a defence attorney and according to an erroneous interpretation of the principle of procedural celerity. Such arbitrary detention “was reconfirm[ed] by means of the judgment which denied the April 29, 1999, recognition of innocence [remedy] which, again, alleges the principle of procedural celerity;