31 k) referring to sequels or consequences of torture is different from speaking about a violation that is committed in a “continued” manner. All violations have sequels and consequences, but this is totally different from a violation being committed “continuously” over time; and l) because of the above reasons, application in the instant case of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission’s arguments 62. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State and to “reaffirm its jurisdiction” in the instant case. In this sense, the Commission submitted the following arguments: a) the purpose of the application submitted in the instant case is not to establish responsibility on the part of the State for violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention relative to events that occurred prior to December 16, 1998, the date on which Mexico recognised the Inter-American Court’s contentious jurisdiction. Contrary to this, the purpose of the application is to address events that occurred after December 16, 1998, which have caused the State to bear international responsibility for maintaining Mr. Martín-del-Campo arbitrarily detained, and for rejecting the recognition-ofinnocence remedy filed on April 05, 1999, with the Distrito Federal Superior Court, “despite unquestionable proof that he was forced to confess under torture;” b) according to the practice of human rights protection bodies, the fact that a claim originated in an event that occurred prior to the date of recognition of their jurisdiction does not invalidate said jurisdiction with respect to other events that occurred thereafter; c) as of the time of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, acts attributable to the State must adjust to the obligations established in the American Convention and are, furthermore, fully susceptible of eventual review by the Inter-American Court; d) events that occurred prior to recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction are presented as a reference context in the instant case. The Court may take these facts into consideration to the extent that this is required in order to understand the situation prevailing after recognition of its jurisdiction and whenever it may be regarded that they have created a situation that extends beyond said date; e) there is no disagreement between the State and the Inter-American Commission about the circumstance that the detention and presumed confession of Mr. Martín-del-Campo occurred in May 1992. Nor is the fact that these events occurred before the deposit of the instrument containing Mexico’s declaration of acceptance of the Inter-American Court’s contentious jurisdiction. However, there is disagreement between the parties concerning “continuity” of the effects of these events;