11 the facts that occurred prior to the recognition of its jurisdiction and has ruled on the violations that occurred in that regard, the States concerned expressly or tacitly granted the Court their consent to do so. 12 24. Consequently, the Court considers that in the instant case it does not have jurisdiction ratione temporis to declare violations of the American Convention for the arbitrary detentions, torture, extrajudicial executions, rape and other forms of sexual violence, forced labor and destruction and theft of property allegedly committed between 1981 and 1986 to the detriment of the Maya Achí indigenous populations of Chichupac village and neighboring communities, on which the State is correct. However, the State is not correct in relation to the continuous or permanent consequences of these acts, whether they are instantaneous or permanent crimes under domestic criminal law. Regardless of the domestic criminal definition, what is continuous is the violation of the Convention that continues to be committed to this day, since the infraction before this Court is one of current international law, given that it does not criminally prosecute officials, but rather the State for violations of the Convention. 13 In that sense, the State is mistaken in challenging the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the alleged forced disappearance and the alleged failure of the State to implement guarantees of return or voluntary resettlement in favor of those persons who remained displaced after March 9, 1987, the date on which the State recognized the Court’s jurisdiction, as well as with respect to its alleged failure to investigate serious human rights violations, and therefore, also with respect to reparations for the facts. In view of the foregoing, this Court partially accepts the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. B. Objection regarding lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae 25. The State filed an objection regarding lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae based on four arguments: 1) the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction to hear alleged violations of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP) and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (“Convention of Belém do Pará”); 2) the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction to determine the commission of crimes; 3) the Court’s alleged lack of criminal jurisdiction to rule on whether or not genocide occurred, as well as to rule on a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and 4) the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction to decree the invalidity of the amnesty. The Court will now analyze the arguments presented by the State. Argument 3) will be analyzed, as appropriate, together with arguments 1) and 2). B.1. Alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court to hear alleged violations of the ICFDP, the Convention of Belém do Pará and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide B.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 26. The State indicated that “the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine alleged violations of the [ICFDP], and of the Convention of Belém do Pará, since Guatemala has not recognized its Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 30; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 22; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 32 and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 27. See also, Case of Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 30, and Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 192. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134, and Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 44. 12