5 the established deadline expired (supra para. 16), the Commission did not submit the information requested regarding the August 16, 2010, decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 18. On August 31, the representatives submitted their observations on the “report on the advances in fulfilling the commitments assumed by the State” to the Court (supra para. 17). Though the established deadline had expired, the Commission did not submit observations regarding the State’s report. III JURISDICTION 19. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction over this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, given that Bolivia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 19, 1979, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. Likewise, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on September 19, 1996, and deposited said document on May 5, 1999. 20. The Court has temporal jurisdiction, as a general rule, as of the date on which the appropriate instruments have been ratified and its binding jurisdiction has been accepted, according to the terms of the instruments of ratification and recognition. 21. Moreover, this Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that it can exercise its jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine permanent or continuing violations, that is, those violations that began prior to both the date of ratification of the instruments and the State’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court and that persist even after that date, without transgressing the principle of non-retroactivity.5 22. Though the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993, given that it has expressly acknowledged the facts that occurred in the instant case as of October 1971 (infra paras. 24 to 26), the Tribunal considers that Bolivia has waived its right to claim a temporal limitation to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction and, therefore, has accepted the Court's contentious jurisdiction to examine all the facts of the case at hand and decide on the violations that may be established, as well as their consequences. 5 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 25; and Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 29.