9 rights12. Without prejudice to the effects of the partial acquiescence made by the State, the Court considers it is necessary to analyze the facts of the instant case and made some clarifications regarding the way in which the committed violations were set forth in the context and circumstances of the case, as well as certain aspects related to the obligations established in the American Convention and other international treaties; to such end, this Tribunal shall open the corresponding chapters. IV COMPETENCE 28. The Court has jurisdiction over this case, under the terms of Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention, given the fact that Bolivia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 19, 1979 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on May 5, 1999, which entered into force on June 5, 1999. 29. This Tribunal has considered in previous cases that it has jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine actions and omissions associated with on-going or lasting violations if such actions begin prior to the date of recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court and persist even after that date, without transgressing the principle of non-retroactivity13. 30. Furthermore, even though the State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993, taking into account that the State expressly acknowledged the events that occurred as from July 22, 1980, the Tribunal considers that Bolivia has waived its right to claim any temporary limitation to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, it has recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction so that such Tribunal may examine all the facts and decide on the resulting violations, if any, in the case at hand. V EVIDENCE 31. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court’s case-law regarding evidence and the assessment thereof14, the Court shall examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the Commission, the representative and the State at the different procedural stages or 12 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C Nº 134, para. 69; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 10, para. 25; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 28. 13 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C Nº. 27, para 39 and 40; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C Nº 161 para. 45; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C Nº 186, para. 25. 14 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C Nº 72, para. 68; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C Nº 180 para. 22; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para 64.