36 occurred after the date of deposit of [the] declaration, for which reason it shall not have retroactive effects.” 71. This Court also notices that the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the purpose of its application was not to establish the State’s international liability in the violation of the American Convention concerning events that occurred prior to Mexico’s recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, and that, “contrary to this, the purpose of the application is to address events that occurred after December 16, 1998.” The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin indicated that “there are, in the instant case, certain events that clearly fall under the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction, since they occurred after December 16, 1998.” 72. In addition, the Inter-American Commission alleged the continuous or permanent nature of the arbitrary detention and the denial of justice that presumably affect Mr. Martín-del-Campo. For their part, the representatives argued that the allegedly illegal and arbitrary imprisonment of Mr. Alfonso Martín-delCampo, the failure to investigate acts of torture, and the failure to adjust the legislation and the practice to international standards of prevention, investigation and punishment of torture, are acts of a continuous nature. In turn, the representatives pointed out that the effects on the alleged victim’s physical and psychological integrity as well as on the personal integrity of the next of kin would have to be analysed from “the perspective of continuous effects.” 73. On the basis of the preceding considerations both, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin pointed out that the events that occurred prior to the date of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction must be regarded as “reference context in this case” and, therefore, they must be taken into account by this Court when the time comes to decide on the merits of the case. 74. For its part, the State indicated, inter alia, that none of the events or acts prior to December 16, 1998, are of a continuous or permanent nature, “since all relevant events and actions took place and ended at times that are perfectly defined in chronological terms prior to said date,” for which reason hearing about the “effects” of such events would be equivalent to extending the Court’s jurisdiction retroactively. 75. In examining the facts set forth in the arguments of the parties, this Court notices that there is no disagreement between the State, the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin in the assertion that those events of the instant case that occurred after December 16, 1998, may fall under the ratione temporis jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, the State stressed that said events could only “be analysed as to their individuality and compatibility per se with the American Convention.” 76. The discrepancy arises from the fact that the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin argued that the Court has jurisdiction to hear about the violation of certain rights to the detriment of Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo arising from alleged events that occurred or that started to occur prior to December 16, 1998 and that still prevail, which, for such reason imply violations of a continuous or permanent nature.