34 f) the violation of Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo’s physical, mental and moral integrity must be approached from the “continued effects” perspective. The May 30, 1992, acts of which State police officials took advantage in order to torture him were instantaneous, but the effects and consequences thereof continue to prevail. In this sense it is of basic importance for the Court to bear in mind the torture sequels which victimised and continue to victimise Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo, to the extent that they are direct consequences of violations committed by State agents, prior to the recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction.” However, the effects that torture may have on a person are matters that pertain to the essence of the individual and the question of whether or not such sequels or effects are directly attributable to the State can be determined only after having acquired thorough knowledge of the case; and g) the acts being denounced in the instant case were perpetrated when the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture were positive law for the State and, therefore, “it had the obligation to ensure enjoyment of the rights and liberties enshrined in both instruments.” Considerations of the Court 64. In the first instance, the State entered the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Inter-American Court, for the Court not to take into consideration events in the instant case that took place prior to the date on which it recognised the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. 65. The preliminary objection was entered by the State on the basis of the text of its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, which was submitted to the Secretary General of the OAS on December 16, 1998, and which reads as follows: 1. 2. 3. The United Mexican States recognise as binding in full right the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning cases relative to interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conformity with its Article 62(1), with the exception of cases related to the application of Article 33 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States. Acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights shall be applicable only to events or legal actions having occurred after the date of deposit of this declaration, for which reason it shall not have retroactive effects. Acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is of a general nature, and shall continue to be in force until one year after the date on which the United Mexican States submit a notice indicating that it has denounced it. 66. This declaration was made by the State in consistency with Article 62 of the American Convention, which establishes: 1. 2. A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases. It shall be presented to the