Méndez, and of their next of kin, because some of the violations were committed before it recognized the Court’s jurisdiction; thus, it acknowledged the violation of certain rights to the detriment of Wendy Santizo Méndez and Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, as well as of their next of kin, as of March 9, 1987 (supra para. 17(a) and 17(c)). In this regard, the Court recalls that, under Article 35(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, when submitting this case, the Commission expressly indicated that it excluded from the submission the facts related to the death of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, and the alleged detention and torture of Wendy Santizo Méndez (supra para. 3). However, it clarified that it was submitting other facts related to both victims, including the failure to investigate the alleged violations and the impact of this on their next of kin.21 The representatives endorsed these considerations of the Commission. Moreover, the Court takes note that Guatemala expressly indicated that the Court could take into account events that occurred prior to March 9, 1987, with regard to Rudy Gustavo Figueroa and Wendy Santizo Méndez, “solely to determine the State’s responsibility for the presumed omissions arising from the lack of an investigation.” 26. The Court considers that the violations to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa and Wendy Santizo Méndez alleged by the Commission and the representatives refer to the lack of an investigation into the facts supposedly suffered by both presumed victims; thus, the alleged violations of the obligation of guarantee deriving from the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention are not based on facts prior to the temporal competence of the Court, but rather to those relating to the absence or omission of investigations into the said facts that presumably occurred after March 9, 1987. Consequently, the Court considers, as it has in other cases,22 that it is competent to examine the facts and possible omissions related to the investigation into the alleged disappearance and death of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, as well as the facts relating to the alleged lack of an investigation into the presumed detention and torture of Wendy Santizo Méndez, which occurred after the date on which Guatemala recognized the Court’s jurisdiction, in light of the procedural obligation derived from the obligation of guarantee arising from Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 and 19 of the Convention, and of the corresponding alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25, with regard to their next of kin, for facts that took place after March 9, 1987, as well as after the dates of the deposit of each of the treaties whose provisions are alleged to have been violated by the absence of an investigation (supra para. 4 and infra para. 30). Furthermore, under the terms of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility (supra para. 17(c)), the Court understand that Guatemala accepted its responsibility for the violations committed against the said persons, to the extent that they are based on facts following the date of recognition of the Court’s competence. Therefore, the Court finds that the dispute has ceased with regard to the violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention that occurred, respectively, to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, Wendy Santizo Méndez, and their next of kin, after March 9, 1987. 21 In its brief with observations on the State’s acquiescence, the Commission indicated that the facts relating to the violations against Mr. Figueroa Muñoz and Ms. Santizo Méndez “fall within the Court’s temporal competence,” because “the failure to investigate and punish,” “is not only a denial of justice with regard to the victims’ next of kin, but reveals non-compliance with the obligation of guarantee.” In addition, the representatives recognized that the Court “lack[ed] competence to rule” on “the detention and torture of Wendy Santizo Méndez and the disappearance and subsequent execution of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz,” but that “the lack of investigation of [the said violations],” as well as “the violations related to the rights of association, to information and to truth persist,” after the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. They stressed that their allegations are based on “acts after the date of acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction and/or continuing acts” and that the State’s assertion “disregards its obligation of guarantee.” 22 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 97, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, paras. 45 to 48. - 13 -