EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 171 between allegations of violations that are no longer perpetrated and violations that are ongoing70. 77. The Complainant further argues that the African Commission needs to consider whether a disappearance is a continuous violation? The Complainant states that though the African Commission has not explicitly decided whether a disappearance leads to a continuous violation, in Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Hommes et des Libertes v Chad71, the African Commission referred to the principle that conforms with the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies. The Complainant argues that the African Commission’s duty to protect human rights indicates that it may take decisions from other international bodies into consideration, where it is accepted that forced disappearances amounts to a continuous violation. 78. The Complainant submits that in the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, the Court in numerous cases, held that ‘forced disappearance of human beings is a multiple and continuous violations of many rights under the Convention that the State Parties are obliged to respect and guarantee’.72 She also argues that the European Court of Human Rights have held that: ‘there has been a continuous violation of Article 2 on account of the failure of the authorities of the Respondent State to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons, who disappeared in lifethreatening circumstances in respect of whom there is arguable claim that they were in custody at the time they disappeared’73. 79. The Complainant submits that it must be concluded that the forced disappearance of the first victim and the failure of the Respondent State to investigate the case constitutes a continuous violation of human rights, and the African Commission is competent ratione temporis. 80. The African Commission holds that the fact that the events alleged occurred before the coming into force of the African Charter, is not sufficient to render the African Commission incompetent ratione temporis, because the African Commission is of the view that not only has the first victim been missing before the coming into force of the African Charter, he continues to be missing even after the coming into force of the Charter and to date, he is still missing. 81. In the view of the African Commission, every enforced disappearance violates a range of human rights including, the right to security and dignity of person, the right not 70 71 72 73 Lawyers for Human Rights v Swaziland Communication 74/92 - Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad (1995) Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR), Velasquez v. Honduras, 29 July 1988,Series C No.4, para. 155. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Cyprus v. Turkey, Application no. 25781/94, Judgment d.d.10 mei 2001