8 which the State of Panama is the defendant, the Court observes that on May 9, 1990, Panama accepted “as binding ipso facto, the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights,” without including any reservation that could place temporal limits on this competence for matters that took place after this acceptance. 27. Consequently, the Court concludes that it has competence to rule on the alleged facts that are the grounds for the supposed violations that took place after May 9, 1990, the date on which Panama accepted the compulsory competence of the Court, as well to rule on those violations that, having commenced prior to that date, continued or persisted subsequently. 1. Competence ratione temporis regarding the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Heliodoro Portugal 28. Regarding the first group of alleged violations, the State based its objection on the fact that the death, alleged mistreatment and detention of Heliodoro Portugal occurred and were completed by June 1971, at the latest; “19 years before the State accepted the Court’s competence as compulsory” on May 9, 1990, and “seven years before Panama ratified the American Convention” in 1978. Therefore, according to the State, these facts, as well as the alleged violations of the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty, would fall outside the Court’s temporal competence. The State also considered that a person can only express himself when he is alive, and since Heliodoro Portugal died in June 1971, the Court does not have temporal competence to rule on the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression, because the retroactive application of the Convention is not permitted. 29. The Commission and the representatives affirmed that the date of Heliodoro Portugal’s death is unknown, and that there is no certainty as to whether this fact falls outside the Court’s temporal competence. They also indicated that, although Heliodoro Portugal was detained on May 14, 1970, his whereabouts remained unknown until August 2000, the date on which “his remains that had been found on September 22, 1999, were genetically identified; that is, more than 10 years after Panama had accepted the compulsory competence of the Court.” According to the Commission and the representatives, the foregoing should be understood and analyzed in the context of the juridical figure of forced disappearance of persons, which is a continuing and multiple offense. In addition, they indicated that the Court is competent to examine the alleged failure to investigate the facts, because the Court’s competence in this regard commenced after the State accepted its competence. Lastly, the representatives indicated that Heliodoro Portugal carried out political activities; that, having been disappeared, his right to freedom of expression was violated, and that the Court has competence in this regard because this alleged violation “continued at all times while he was disappeared.” 30. Based on the above, the Court must decide on the exercise of its competence ratione temporis in relation to the alleged forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of Heliodoro Portugal, who was presumably detained on May 14, 1970; that is, 20 years before the State recognized the Court’s competence in 1990, and whose whereabouts were unknown until his remains were identified in August 2000. a) 31. Competence ratione temporis regarding the alleged extrajudicial execution In its application, the Commission requested that the Court declare the State’s