“investigate,” and did not provide any grounds other than this background information. In particular, it did not explain why, under the applicable domestic or international law, the State had a duty to investigate the alleged facts in this case. In addition, it did not indicate that there had been, either before or after March 25, 1999, proceedings relating to the investigation of the facts, or claims made requiring this, or any other act or fact related to it. Consequently, when determining its temporal competence, the Court is unable to consider the alleged “impunity” of the facts of the case. Since this is true of all the alleged acts of expulsion, both those had took place prior to March 25, 1999, and those that occurred subsequently, the Court will not take into account the alleged “impunity” when examining the merits of the violations alleged in relation to acts for which it has competence. 43. Having established the foregoing, it should be noted that the alleged expulsions in this case are acts whose execution concluded with their implementation; that is, with the implementation, ordered and imposed by State authorities or officials, of the removal of the person in question from the State’s territory. The aftereffects of such acts do not constitute their continuing nature, and therefore the Court cannot examine them, 36 unless they are independent acts that constitute the violation of other treaty-based rights. 44. Consequently, the Court will not examine the following facts and effects, because they fall outside its temporal competence and, furthermore, they were not submitted to its consideration: a) The facts relating to the alleged expulsion of Benito Tide Méndez from Dominican territory in 1998, and its effects; 37 b) The facts relating to the alleged expulsion of Bersson Gelin in 1995, or its effects; c) The facts relating to the detention and expulsion of Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión in 1994, 38 and 36 Cf. similarly, Case of Alfonso Martin del Campo Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 78, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, para. 36. 37 Despite the foregoing, in its Merits report, the Commission indicated among the facts the steps that Mr. Tide had taken in 2007 to replace his Dominican identity card, and related this to the alleged violation of the right to juridical personality and to equality before the law. The Court would have temporal competence to examine these facts. However, for reasons of procedural economy it should be noted that there is no evidence of this fact, which the Commission asserted based on the “observations on the merits of the case presented [to the Commission] by the representatives [that] were not contested by the State.” In addition, it emerges prima facie that these facts, taken in isolation, only describe steps taken by Mr. Tide (the completion of which is not recorded), so that they do not prove infringements of treaty-based rights. In fact, they indicate that Benito Tide Méndez “had lost” his “Dominican identity card”; that “he tried to replace” it, and that Dominican authorities “refused” to do this, because they told him that he must “go to the Central Electoral Board” because “he was being investigated.” In this regard, the Commission considered that “the steps taken [by Benito Tide Méndez] in order to recover his documentation encountered several obstacles and additional requirements, and he was allegedly refused the documentation owing to an investigation that was underway.” Hence, the Commission did not assert conclusively, but only potentially, that the “documentation” “had allegedly been refused,” and did not provide explanations, other than those described, as to why the supposed “obstacles and additional requirements,” or the said “investigation” would, in themselves, give rise to violations of treaty-based rights. The Court considers that the facts described and the considerations, isolated from other facts concerning Benito Tide Méndez that the Court is unable to analyze owing to the limits to its temporal competence, reveal a priori that it is not possible to infer violations of the American Convention; accordingly, it is not necessary to analyze these circumstances. Thus, the Court is unable to examine any presumed act or fact relating to Benito Tide. This means that the Court cannot rule on the members of Mr. Tide’s family, because the allegations with regard to them are based on a connection to the supposed acts that concern him. 38 It is relevant to establish that the Court will not examine the allegations relating to the presumed impossibility of Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión to present their personal documentation to the authorities, or the supposed destruction of this documentation. In this regard, it should be explained that, in the Merits report, the Commission determined that Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión, “during their arbitrary detention and expulsion, […] were not given the opportunity to present [their] documentation [or this] 18