10 20. On the other hand, the Court also has jurisdiction to hear human rights violations of a continuous or permanent nature, even if the first act of execution took place before the date of recognition of the Court's contentious jurisdiction, if such violations persist after such recognition, since they continue to be committed. 9 Thus, the State is reminded that within the sphere of its jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the Inter-American Court to assess the actions or omissions of State agents in the cases before it, according to the evidence presented by the parties, and to assess these in accordance with the American Convention and other interAmerican treaties that grant it jurisdiction, in order to determine whether the State has incurred international responsibility. 21. Finally, the Commission and the representatives argued that in this case the Court would also have jurisdiction to hear the facts of immediate execution that occurred prior to the date of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, on the grounds that the acknowledgment of responsibility in the instant case made by the State before the Commission and reiterated in its answer before the Court would imply a waiver of the temporal limitation of jurisdiction. 22. In the instant case, Guatemala recognized its international responsibility in the proceeding before the Commission. However, prior to the issuance of the Commission’s Merits Report, Guatemala also declared that it does “not recognize the jurisdiction ratione temporis of the InterAmerican Court […] to hear the case […].” 10 Thus, in submitting the case before the Court, the Commission only brought to the Court's attention “the State's actions and omissions that occurred or continued to occur after March 9, 1987, the date on which it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court […],” and “without prejudice to […] Guatemala’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this case in its entirety.” Now, in the proceedings before this Court - that is, in the answering brief, at the public hearing and in its final written arguments - Guatemala adopted a position consistent with the acknowledgement of responsibility made before the Commission, in the sense that it did not deny the facts of the case. Likewise, during the public hearing, it recognized its international responsibility under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the investigations initiated in this case since 1993 (infra para. 51). However, at all times, it expressly refused to grant its consent to the Court to examine the facts that occurred prior to the date on which it accepted its jurisdiction. 23. In this regard, the Court considers that a State may waive a temporal limitation to the exercise of its jurisdiction expressly or tacitly, for example, through an acknowledgement of international responsibility. However, the willingness of the State to be tried must be made clear from its procedural conduct. 11 In previous cases in which the Court has examined all or part of 9 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Judgment of July 22, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 25. 10 Briefs submitted on December 11, and July 17, 2013 (evidence file, folios 3368 and 3454). 11 See, Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 177. Available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/136/14550.pdf. “The consent allowing for the Court to assume jurisdiction must be certain. […] As the Court has recently explained, whatever the basis of consent, the attitude of the respondent State must “be capable of being regarded as ‘an unequivocal indication’ of the desire of that State to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in a ‘voluntary and indisputable’ manner” […] For the Court to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum prorogatum, the element of consent must be either explicit or clearly to be deduced from the relevant conduct of a State.” Likewise, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), Judgement (Preliminary Objections), July 22, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 114. Available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/16/1997.pdf. “The principle of forum prorogatum, if it could be applied to the present case, would have to be based on some conduct or statement of the Government of Iran which involves an element of consent regarding the jurisdiction of the Court. But that Government has consistently denied the jurisdiction of the Court. Having filed a Preliminary Objection for the purpose of disputing the jurisdiction, it has throughout the proceedings maintained that Objection. It is true that it has submitted other Objections which have no direct bearing on the question of jurisdiction. But they are clearly designed as measures of defense which it would be necessary to examine only if Iran's Objection to the jurisdiction were rejected. No element of consent can be deduced from such conduct on the part of the Government of Iran. […] Accordingly, the Court has arrived at the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the case submitted to it […].”