5 investigate. Based on the conclusions of Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 13/07, the Commission founded its application solely on acts and omissions that occurred independently after the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, such as its obligation to investigate Mr. Garibaldi’s murder effectively and adequately and within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Commission indicated that, for the effects of the Court’s jurisdiction, the application relates to the denial of justice that Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin have experienced, and continue to experience today, subsequent to the date on which the State accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Lastly, it clarified that the reparations requested in the application are those it considered adequate; that the State had reported on efforts made to implement them during the proceedings before the Commission, and that the Court would decide their pertinence in accordance with its decision on the merits of the case. Based on the above, it considered that the Court has competence ratione temporis to examine the facts and violations described in the application. 15. The representatives contested “the arguments presented by the [State] and reaffirmed that the State was responsible for Sétimo Garibaldi’s death, in the understanding that the State erred by failing to conduct an exhaustive investigation, by not identifying the perpetrators and the masterminds, and by not preventing the recurrence of similar acts.” The violation does not end with an act that violates a human right, but persists until appropriate measures are adopted to ensure an end to the violation, to attribute the corresponding responsibility, and to prevent the occurrence of similar violations. The obligation to investigate is a fundamental element of the right to life and, by failing to ensure a diligent investigation, the State violated Article 4 of the Convention even though it had not been responsible for the original violation. The authorities were negligent and omissive in the investigation they conducted and did not identify the individual responsible for the execution of Sétimo Garibaldi. 16. In addition, the representatives affirmed that the State’s obligation to respect the rights established in the Convention existed prior to the date on which it accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, because the State was already a party to the Convention. The murder created a continuing situation of violations with acts and effects that took place after it accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, they asked the Court to examine the arguments and evidence that Brazil had violated and continues to violate the rights to life and humane treatment in this case and should also be sentenced and convicted in this regard, insofar as it was incapable of protecting Sétimo Garibaldi’s right to life. In particular, in relation to the violation of the right to humane treatment, they stated that “Sétimo Garibaldi […] suffered extreme mental and moral suffering up until the moment of his death[,] which proves that the State violated Article 5.” Regarding Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they affirmed that the Court has understood that it has competence to examine continuing violations initiated before the date on which the State party accepted its jurisdiction and that persist after that date. The Court has competence to examine continuing violations without infringing the principle of non-retroactivity. However, should the Court understand that Mr. Garibaldi’s death does not fall within its jurisdiction owing to the temporal limitation imposed by Brazil, there are sufficient elements to reaffirm the State’s responsibility for the violation of the judicial guarantees of Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin and other rights after December 10, 1998. They also considered that the Court “could recognize that the violation of the right to life and the consequent non-compliance with the obligation to provide an official response is a continuing violation of Articles 4 and 5 [of the Convention].” Based on the foregoing, they asked the Court not to admit the preliminary objection filed by the State. * * 17. * Although the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure do not develop the