2 6. In view of the above, in the specific case of Bolivia the Court can only hear and decide on facts occurred after July 27, 1993, which is –as stated before (para. 3)- the date on which the State accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, having previously –in 1979- adhered to the American Convention. If the competence of the Court has that time restriction, it is also applicable to its capacity to assign juridical consequences, by way of reparations, to facts in violation of the Convention. Said consequences will refer specifically to facts in violation –a term that includes, as stated above (para. 2), both acts and situations that breach the Convention- covered by the competence of the Court, and not the consequences of those that are not covered by said competence, even if their nature is the same as that of facts that fall under that competence. 7. It is the duty of the Court to determine its own competence in the cases brought before it, as subject matter for a specific ruling. This consideration is in accordance with the principle of legal certainty and it is the logical and juridical basis for exercise of jurisdiction. To this end, it must abide by norms that are applicable to this matter, independently of the arguments of the parties or the omissions or silence in which they may incur, if that is the case. Stated otherwise, this is an issue that the Court must examine of its own accord and rule –favorably- before hearing and rendering judgment in a contentious case. Each of its acts must be set within the framework of the competence of the Court, which is thus projected on the proceedings as a whole and on each and all rulings during the proceedings. 8. In the instant case, a judgment has been reached regarding violation of the right to personal liberty of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, among other violations. The respective denial of liberty began on February 2, 1972 and has continued without interruption since then. Commencement of the illicit conduct therefore took place long before Bolivia adhered to the American Convention and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (supra, 2), and long before the State became a party –as of 1999- of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 9. In the course of the merits stage in these proceedings under international jurisdiction, the State “recognized the facts set forth by the Commission in section III of its application, which are summarized in paragraph 2 of the instant judgment. Likewise, the State recognized its international responsibility in the instant case and accepted the juridical consequences derived from the aforementioned facts” (Judgment on the merits, para. 36). This explicit recognition, which amounts to acquiescence, encompasses the facts stated in the application; by this means, the State recognizes the existence of conduct in breach of the Convention, that involves responsibility and generates consequences set forth in the Convention itself. On the other hand, said recognition does not involve any juridical act beyond recognition of the facts, nor does it constitute in and of itself a modification of the general terms under which the State adhered to the Convention or accepted jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. 10. In the event now before the Court, the violation of the right to personal liberty takes place by means of a fact (an activity, supra 2, c) that continues without interruption and corresponds, in criminal terms, to the category of a continuous or permanent crime (supra, para. 2). The violation continues to exist, also uninterruptedly, as long as the deprivation of liberty persists.