32 f) the “detention resulting from a confession obtained from Mr. [Alfonso Martín-]del-Campo […] by means of torture and with the ‘legal advice’ of a graduate in computer science, continues to have effects up to this day.” In the instant case, arbitrary denial of personal freedom and denial of justice are not violations that became consummated instantaneously;” g) while it is true that the act of torture whose victim was Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo is a single act not being claimed as an act of a “continuous nature,” the consequences of said act and the consequent arbitrary detention and denial of justice are different in nature, since they have been affecting Mr. Martín-del-Campo with equal or greater intensity today than on the day on which the confession was signed. The consequences of torture do not end, nor have they been repaired; h) arbitrary detention is a “permanent offence.” Offences of this type have a result and imply, by the will of the perpetrator, maintaining a typical situation that lasts a certain length of time. In the case of offences of this type the act is constantly renewed; there is no pause between the different actions, and what prevails is the consummation of the act per se. It is for this reason that it is pointed out that prevalence refers to the action, not to its effects. In this case the action started on December 16, 1998, the day on which Mexico recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, but because of its nature as a “permanent offence” it is necessary, in order to become informed concerning whether or not Mr. Martín-del-Campo’s detention is arbitrary, to take its background into account. The Court is, therefore, not being required to have ratione temporis jurisdiction over previous events, only over later events. i) the “authorities that took part in this case had several possibilities to repair the alleged violations and did not do so. Said omission has persisted after the [recognition] of the contentious jurisdiction of the […] Court [by Mexico] and has become reiterated during the submission and justification of the recognition-of-innocence remedy, for which reason international responsibility on the part of the State is generated […] concerning the facts in the instant case.” In turn, rejection of the cited recognition-of-innocence remedy implies not only denial of justice, but also legal validation of Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo’s statement which was obtained under torture at the Distrito Federal Office of the Attorney General; and j) the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was ratified by the State on June 22, 1987. However, such rules were not applied by the attorneys who took part in the recognition-of-innocence remedy filed on behalf of Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo, giving again full value to his “confession obtained under torture.” Similarly, the State “continues to fail to comply with its obligation to investigate duly and punish all persons responsible for the acts of torture perpetrated by the authorities” of Mexico against Mr. Martín-del-Campo. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 63. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin asked the Court to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the facts in the instant case. Regarding these, they alleged the following: