10 extrajudicial execution of Mrs. Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva, whose bodily remains were identified in 1996, namely, two years before Brazil recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, as well as any other facts prior to said recognition remain outside of the jurisdiction of the Court. 17. In its constant jurisprudence, this Court has established, however, that acts of a continuous or permanent nature extend throughout time wherein the event continues, maintaining a lack of conformity with international obligations.24 In accordance with the foregoing, the Court highlights that the continuous or permanent nature of the enforced disappearance of persons has been recognized in a repeated manner in the International Law of Human Rights,25 where the act of disappearance and execution commence with the deprivation of liberty of the person and the subsequent lack of information regarding the whereabouts, and continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are made known and the facts are ascertained. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to analyze the alleged enforced disappearances of the alleged victims as of Brazil’s recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. 18. In addition, the Court can examine and rule on the other alleged violations, which are founded in facts that occurred or persisted as of December 10, 1998. Based on the foregoing, the Court has jurisdiction to analyze the alleged facts and omissions of the State that occurred after said date, which are related to the failure to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible, inter alia, for the alleged disappearance and extrajudicial execution; the alleged lack of effectiveness of judicial remedies of a civil nature aimed at obtaining information regarding the facts; the alleged restrictions on the right to access information, and the alleged suffering of the next of kin. 19. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court finds the preliminary objection to be partially well-founded. B. Lack of legal interest in the proceeding 1. Arguments by the parties 20. Brazil argued that the Commission recognized and valued the measures of reparation adopted by the State in regard to the present case, but that said organ affirmed, in a general manner, that other measures needed to be implemented. According to the criteria of the State, due to the “minimal time which elapsed from the presentation of the Report on Partial Compliance of Recommendations [of the State regarding Report on the Merits No. 91/08] and the presentation of the case before the Court (three days), the evaluation of the [Commission] on the compliance of the measures of reparation and non-repetition recommended Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 24, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 18, para. 20. 24 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, paras. 39 and 40; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 23, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 21; In the same sense, Article 14(2) of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Cf. Order of the General Assembly of the United Nations No. 56/83 of December 12, 2001, annex, U.N. DOC. A/56/49 (VOL. I)/CORR.4. 25 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 155; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 81 and 87, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 59 and 60.