cannot continue enjoying and exercising all the other rights that he also possesses. However, this does not mean that forced disappearance, as a multiple and complex violation, entails the violation of all the rights that the disappeared person is unable to exercise. The Court considers that these arguments of the representatives refer to supposed effects that will be examined in the chapter corresponding to the investigation of the facts, so that it does not find it necessary to make an additional ruling in that regard. 191. In addition, the Court takes note that the Commission and the representatives argued that the reason for Narciso González Medina’s forced disappearance was an “autonomous and direct” violation of his freedom of expression, because it was a result of his criticism of President Balaguer and the 1994 electoral process. The Commission indicated that the violations inherent in forced disappearance, such as the one that can be inferred from its motives, “acquire a permanent and continuing nature,” because they continue to be constituted until the forced disappearance ceases, since the presumption of death cannot be applied to counter the rights of the victim. For their part, the representatives indicated that the violation of his freedom of expression is not an incidental consequence of the disappearance, but was the main reason for it, so that it was a twofold violation derived from the same single act, because all the violations that can be attributed to the crime of forced disappearance constitute a single act of a continuing nature that persists over time until the victims’ whereabouts are known. Consequently, they asked the Court to determine that the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina “violated his right to freedom of expression directly and independently.” In this regard, the State argued that it had never been reported that the victim had received threats related to the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and that Mr. González Medina had a limited ability to influence public opinion. Thus, it denied that the supposed disappearance of Narciso González Medina had resulted from his declarations contesting the results of the election. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare that the State had not violated Article 13 of the Convention, to the detriment of Narciso González Medina. 192. Regarding the alleged violation of freedom of expression of Mr. González Medina owing to the reason for his forced disappearance, the Court recalls that, on previous occasions, it has recognized that when the purpose of the violation of the rights to life, and to personal liberty or integrity is to impede the legitimate exercise of another right protected by the Convention, such as freedom of association, 236 political rights, 237 and freedom of expression, 238 there is also an autonomous violation of these rights protected by the American Convention. However, a particularity of this case is that the beginning of the forced disappearance was prior to the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court lacks competence to examine the alleged violation of the freedom of expression of Narciso González Medina as an autonomous violation. Contrary to other cases of forced disappearance in which the Court has declared a violation of the right whose limitation motivated the disappearance, the Dominican Republic has not acquiesced to the facts or acknowledged the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives. When a State acquiesces to facts that preceded its acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, it waives any temporal limitation to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction and, 236 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paras. 66 and 75; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paras. 146 and 147; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 167, para. 150, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 172. 237 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 236, para. 172, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 52, paras. 116 and 117. 238 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 236, paras. 176 and 177. 63