EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 173 87. To determine whether ‘disappearance’ is a continuing violation, the African Commission has to clarify what is a continuing violation or a continuing act? 88. A continuing violation happens when an act is committed in a certain moment, but continues due to the consequences of the original act.75 The doctrine of continuing violation has been used by several international tribunals to hold states accountable for acts or human rights violations which occurred before the state became a party to a particular treaty or recognized the competence of the tribunal. 89. In the Inter-American Human Rights system, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has used the doctrine of continuing violation on several occasions to exert its authority over failure to investigate a past violation on grounds that an ongoing failure violates victims' Convention-protected right to judicial protection. In Moiwana Village v. Suriname,76 the Inter- American Court of Human Rights examined the violation which occurred before Suriname's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, but which continued after it. The Court argued that its jurisdiction is based on the State's failure to investigate the facts which occurred before the Convention's ratification. 90. In Ovelario Tames v. Brazil,77 the victim was allegedly beaten by military police officers and found dead in a prison in October, 1988. The Inter-American Commission accepted its own jurisdiction on facts which occurred before Brazil ratified the American Convention. It stated that: ‘The fact that Brazil has ratified the Convention on 25 September, 1992, does not exempt its responsibility for violations of human rights that occurred prior to that ratification…’ 91. In Blake v. Guatemala78, an American journalist was executed by Guatemalan authorities before the State accepted the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In that case, Blake's forced disappearance lasted from 1985 until 1992, and in spite of the fact that his whereabouts were known by the Government authorities, his next of kin were not informed. The Guatemalan Government ratified the Convention in 1978 and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in 1987, therefore, concerning the forced disappearance, the Court exerted its jurisdiction. According to the Court, the enforced disappearance was a continuous violation of the Convention rights. 92. All the above mentioned cases refer to continuing violation of rights which happened after the establishment of either the Inter American Commission or the Court, even if the events occurred before the related countries had ratified the Inter-America Convention. 75 76 77 78 Lilian M. Yamamoto., Inter-American Commission of Human Rights -Feasibility Study of Atomic Bombing Case. Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 124, at 1 ( 15 June, 2005) IACHR Report N? 19/98, Case No. 11.516, 21 February, 1998, Ann. Report . IACHR 1998. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 36, at 1 (2 July 1996).