Torture on January 29, 1987; the Convention of Belém do Pará on April 4, 1995, and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance on February 25, 2000. 31. The Court recalls that, as a general rule, it has temporal competence as of the date of ratification of the respective instruments and of the recognition of its contentious jurisdiction, in the terms in which the said ratifications and recognition were made. 27 However, it observes that, in the instant case, the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for the alleged violation of freedom of association as the reason for the forced disappearance of the 26 disappeared persons, and for the alleged violation of the rights of the child of Juan Pablo and María Quirina Armira López, because they were minors at the time of their detention and subsequent disappearance (supra paras. 17(b(2), 17(b)(5) and 24). These allege violations occurred and ceased before the date of recognition of the Court’s competence. 32. The Court has established that, when a State acknowledges its international responsibility for violations of the American Convention that occurred before its recognition of the Court’s competence, that State waives the temporal limitation to the exercise of its competence with regard to the facts or violations acknowledged, thereby giving its consent for the Court to examine the facts that occurred and to rule on the violations that were constituted in that regard.28 Therefore, based on the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court finds that, in this case, it has competence to examine the alleged violation of Articles 16 and 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged 26 victims of forced disappearance and of Juan Pablo and María Quirina Armira López, respectively. V PRIOR CONSIDERATION ON ADDITIONAL FACTS ALLEGED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES 33. The Court observes that the representatives added certain facts in their pleadings and motions brief that were not included by the Commission in its merits report. In particular, in their arguments regarding the alleged violation of Article 5, they indicated that Aura Elena Farfán had been raped in 1991, and in their allegations relating to Article 22 of the Convention, they indicated that Blanca Rosa Ortega, Yordin Herrera Urizar and Ana Dolores Monroy Peralta had left Guatemala or had been internally displaced. Furthermore, in the section on the requests for compensation in favor of the presumed victims, the representatives referred to the presumed forced disappearances of two persons not included as presumed victims in this case29, and also to the presumed murder of Florentín Gudiel Ramos30the presumed attacks suffered by Raúl Augusto Sosa Calderón in 1983, by Yordin Eduardo Herrera Urizar in 1994, by Wendy Santizo Méndez starting in 1999, by Efraín García in 2007 and by Aura Elena Farfán in 2001 and 2004, among which they describe a presumed rape. In addition, it their final written arguments, the representatives included 27 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 20. 28 In this regard, see, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 30; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 22. See also, Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 192. 29 This refers to the presumed disappearance of Florentino Gómez, brother of Crescencio Gómez López, and of the husband of the sister of Víctor Manuel Calderón Díaz. 30 The presumed murder of Florentín Gudiel Ramos forms part of the facts and purpose of the Case of Gudiel Ramos et al. v. Guatemala. - 15 -