D.2. Considerations of the Court 63. Brazil accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on December 10, 1998, and, in its declaration, indicated that the Court would have jurisdiction with regard to “facts subsequent” to this acceptance.43 Based on this and on the principle of nonretroactivity, the Court is unable to exercise its contentious jurisdiction in order to apply the Convention and declare a violation of its norms when the alleged facts or the conduct of the State that could entail its international responsibility occurred prior to this acceptance of jurisdiction.44 Consequently, the facts that occurred before Brazil accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction fall outside its competence. 64. Nevertheless, in its consistent case law, the Court has established that acts of a continuing or permanent nature subsist throughout the time they persist, continuing the failure to conform to the international obligation. Accordingly, the Court recalls that the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons has been recognized repeatedly by international human rights law, under which the act of disappearance and its perpetration begins with the deprivation of the person’s liberty and the subsequent lack of information about their fate, and remains until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known and the facts have been elucidated.45 Therefore, the Court is competent to analyze the alleged forced disappearance of Luis Ferreira da Cruz and Iron Canuto da Silva followng Brazil’s acceptance of its jurisdiction. 65. Furthermore, the Court can examine and rule on the other alleged violations that are based on facts that occurred after December 10, 1998. Consequently, the Court is competent to analyze the supposed acts and omissions of the State that occurred during the investigations and proceedings related to the 1997 inspection conducted in Hacienda Brasil Verde that took place after Brazil had accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, and also the facts related to the 2000 inspection and the proceedings instituted after this. Based on the foregoing, the Court reaffirms its consistent case law on the matter and finds that the preliminary objection is partially justified. E. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae based on violation of the principle of the subsidiary nature of the inter-American system E.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 66. The State indicated that the domestic judicial remedies were duly concluded by the competent authorities and that the representatives’ discrepancy with their conclusions was insufficient to justify recourse to the inter-American system. The State also asserted that it was only possible to resort to the inter-American system in the hypothesis that the exhaustion of the domestic remedy did not lead to a conclusive ruling by the competent authority on whether or not a presumed violation existed. It indicated that, if the Court Brazil’s acceptance of jurisdiction on December 10, 1998, indicated that “[t]he Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares its recognition as binding, for an indefinite period of time, ipso jure, of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights, according to Article 62 of that Convention, on the condition of reciprocity and for matters arising after the time of this Declaration.” Cf. General information of the Treaty: American Convention on Human Rights. Brazil, acceptance of jurisdiction. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32 _American_Convention_on_ Human_Rights_sign.htm. 43 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 16. 44 45 Cf. Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), para. 17. 18