of the Convention. 48 In addition, on January 29, 1987, the Dominican Republic ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 48. In light of the said acceptance of this Court’s jurisdiction and of the principle of nonretroactivity, the Court can examine acts or facts that occurred after the date of this acceptance. 49 The Court also has competence to examine violations of a permanent or continuing nature that began before the defendant State accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction, and that persist following this acceptance, because they continue to be committed; thus the principle of non-retroactivity is not contravened. 50 49. In the instant case, the objections raised by the Dominican Republic contest the permanent nature of forced disappearance and maintain that the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina had ceased before the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction because the State presumes that, owing to his health and possible lack of medical care, Mr. González Medina would have died before the date of this acceptance (supra para. 42). 50. First, the Court finds inadmissible the State’s argument that the alleged violations that would have occurred if forced disappearance had been constituted are of an instantaneous nature (supra para. 42). In its consistent case law since 1988, 51 the Court has established the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons, which has repeatedly been recognized by international human rights law. The Court classified the series of multiple and continuing violations of various rights protected by the Convention as forced disappearance of persons, based on the development of this concept in international human rights law at that time. 52 This Court’s case law has been in the vanguard of the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective of the multiple offenses against the rights affected and the permanent or continuing nature of the offense of forced disappearance of persons, 53 in which 48 The acceptance of jurisdiction by the Dominican Republic indicated that “[t]he Government of the Dominican Republic, by means of this instrument, declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as legally binding and without any special agreement with regard to all cases relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights of November 22, 1969. 49 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen. Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 21. 50 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, supra note 28, paras. 65 and 66, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 24. 51 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 155, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 82. 52 In the sphere of international human rights law, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances developed a functional definition of the phenomenon in the 1980s. The conceptual elements established by this Working Group were subsequently included in the definitions of several international instruments. Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 82, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 92. See, also, the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, thirty-seventh session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1435, of 22 January 1981, para. 4; report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, thirty-ninth session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1983/14, of 21 January 1983, paras. 130 to 132, and report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, Report on visit to Sir Lanka by three members of the Working Group, 7 to 18 October 1991, E/CN.4/1992/18/Add. 1, of 5 January 1992. 53 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 102. The European Court of Human Rights 18