37 77. Following, the Court must, in determining the scope of its jurisdiction in the instant case, set forth its reasons if it accepts and welcomes the reasons alleged by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin, in the sense that some of the events or acts that took place prior to December 16, 1998, are of a continuous or permanent nature or have “continuous effects.” 78. The Court must determine whether the alleged offence of torture as alleged by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin is an instantaneous offence 12 or a continuing or recurrent offence 13 . Each act of torture is consummated or terminated within itself, the perpetration thereof not extending over time, for which reason the alleged act, or acts, of torture to the detriment of Mr. Martín-del-Campo falls short of the Court’s jurisdiction in that it is an instantaneous act and because of the fact that it occurred prior to December 16, 1998. In like manner, the sequels of torture alleged by the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin are not equivalent to a continuous offence. It is appropriate to point out that the Court has, in its constant jurisprudence, reiterated its absolute objection to torture, as well as the duty of the States Parties to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the application of torture. 79. It is necessary for the Court to point out with total clarity on this matter that, if the alleged offence was continuous or permanent, the Court would have jurisdiction to decide concerning acts or events that occurred after recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction 14 . But in a case of this nature, the alleged offence that would be the cause of the violation alleged (torture) was instantaneous; it occurred and became consummated before recognition of the contentious jurisdiction. Concerning investigation of the offence, said investigation did take place and was reopened on several occasions. This occurred after recognition of the court’s contentious jurisdiction, but neither the Commission nor the representatives of the alleged victim have provided elements concerning the effects suffered, on the basis of which specific violations of the due process could have been identified and with respect to which the Court would have been able to hear the case. 80. Nor can the Court hear any of the facts relative to the penal proceedings within the internal jurisdiction against Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo, including alleged arbitrary detention and incarceration and alleged denial of justice, since the regular processing of this case ended with the February 09, 1998, decision of the First Section of the Supreme Court, which decided to dismiss, on the basis of non applicability, the revision remedy entered by Mr. Martín-del-Campo on January 19, 1998, against the December 02, 1997, judgment of the Fourth Penal Court of the Distrito Federal First Circuit (supra para. 58.1.20). 81. The recognition of innocence remedy entered by Mr. Martín-del-Campo before the Seventeenth Penal Section of the Distrito Federal Superior Court on April 05, 1999, after recognition by Mexico of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on December 12 The offence is construed as instantaneous when the execution of its constituting elements marks the end of its consummation. 13 It is maintained that the offence is continuous or permanent when its consummation extends over time. 14 and 40. Cfr. Case of Blake. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 02, 1996. Series C No. 27, para. 39