2 it is an act that ends once it has been committed. Therefore, I concur in the argument that the objection for non jurisdiction ratione temporis in relation to this allegation must be admitted. The fourth one refers to the non compliance on the part of the State with its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish for an act of torture. This allegation, in my opinion, cannot be rejected on the allegation that the Court does not have jurisdiction because of the date on which the events occurred (and this seems to emanate from the operative part of the judgement), since the allegation of lack of investigation of such torture and, in general, the investigation thereof by the State, have extended beyond the date on which the State recognised the jurisdiction of the Court. Without prejudice to the latter, I feel that, as in the case of alleged violation of Article 8 with respect to the declaration of innocence remedy, again here the Court has nothing about which it can pronounce itself, since the Commission justifies the allegation merely stating that the State “continues neglecting its duty to investigate properly and punish all those responsible for the acts of torture that were established by the authorities themselves,” and the representatives of the victim allege, in support of the existence of a violation, that thus far “none of the eleven public officials denounced has been prosecuted or punished penally.” Neither of these two arguments refers to the matter with respect to which the Court could have pronounced itself, that is, examination for defects in the investigation which must be done under the obligation to guarantee (Article 5 read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention) in light of the due process. These considerations are, to me, the basis for non examination of the case on the merits in this respect. Cecilia Medina-Quiroga Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary