González Medina.” According to the Commission, the State’s consideration that the abovementioned violations of the American Convention are of an instantaneous nature “is incompatible even with the Court’s most restricted approach to cases of forced disappearance.” The Commission also referred to the criteria of the system’s organs concerning the presumption of death in cases of forced disappearance of persons and the Court’s competence to rule on alleged continuing violation of the right to freedom of expression “insofar as it was a reason for the forced disappearance.” Regarding the alleged facts about destruction and loss of documents, as well as on the State’s omissions in the search for and recovery of this information,” the Commission indicated that these are violations that “not only continue having effects today, but they are the means by which the fate and whereabouts of the victim have been concealed.” Considerations of the Court 45. First, the Court reiterates that, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the authority inherent in its powers to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The instruments accepting the optional clause concerning the compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) suppose the acceptance by the States presenting those instruments of the Court’s right to decide any dispute concerning its jurisdiction.44 46. According to Article 62(1) of the American Convention, 45 in order to determine whether or not it has competence to hear a case, or any aspect of it, the Court must take into consideration the date on which the State accepted its jurisdiction, the terms in which it indicated its acceptance, and the principle of non-retroactivity established in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 46 Although the State is bound to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention as of the date on which it ratifies it, 47 the competence of the Court to declare a violation of its norms is regulated by the said acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by the State. 47. The Dominican Republic ratified the American Convention on April 19, 1978, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on March 25, 1999; in its declaration it indicated that it acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court as legally binding and without any special agreement in all cases concerning the interpretation or application 44 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 16 and 17, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra note 28, para. 63. 45 Article 62(1) of the Convention establishes: 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. 46 This article establishes that “[u]nless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.” 47 Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that: “[u]nless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.” 17