thus, accepts its competence to examine all the facts that occurred and rule on all the violations that are constituted in that case. 239 193. In addition, the Court considers that the circumstance that a forced disappearance was perpetrated in order to impede the legitimate exercise of a right does not mean that the consequent violation of this right is of a permanent nature. The fact that the persons is currently unable to exercise the right whose exercise it was intended to prevent, does not mean that the violation has been prolonged continuously over time, as a single and constant violation. 240 In addition, since motive is not one of the elements that constitute forced disappearance, it does not acquire the latter��s permanent nature. Consequently, the Court is not competent to rule in this regard in the instant case. * 194. Lastly, based on all the above findings, the Court concludes that the Dominican Republic incurred international responsibility for the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina, which began on May 26, 1994, without his whereabouts being known to date, so that it violated the rights recognized in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Narciso González Medina. * 195. In this chapter, the Court has declared the international responsibility of the Dominican Republic for non-compliance with the obligation to respect the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life and juridical personality of Narciso González Medina (supra paras. 170 and 174 to 194). The assessment of the obligation to guarantee the said rights by means of a diligent and effective investigation of the facts will be made in Chapter VIII of this judgment. VIII RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 7, 5, 4, 3, 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION TO THE DETRIMENT OF NARCISO GONZALEZ MEDINA AND HIS FAMILY A) Introduction 196. In this chapter, the Court will summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the parties, and will then rule on the merits of the case in relation to the alleged violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition, the Court will also rule in this chapter on the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the American Convention. 239 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 30, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 49, para. 22. 240 Regarding the characteristics of a permanent violation, cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, supra note 49, paras. 39 and 40; Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113, para. 78; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 22, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 53, para. 17. 64