Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

280 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 12
regardless of whether the situation originated from an
act/fact that occurred before that date. 686 This case
must be distinguished from breaches of international
obligations which occurred and ended before the entry
into force of the treaty but still have effects after the
entry into force of the treaty. In such cases, the
mechanism will however be able to adjudicate collateral
violations: for example the lack of investigation into
responsibility for violations of human rights law, if the
State did not remedy it before the entry into force of the
treaty. 687
Breach of obligation to prevent: this situation occurs
when the State has an obligation to prevent a given
event, but fails to do so. The breach extends over the
entire period during which the event continues and
remains in violation of that obligation. 688
ii) Material jurisdiction (“ratione materiae”)
This kind of jurisdiction relates to the treaty or the international
obligation of which the international mechanism is the
“guardian”. It means that it is not possible to raise before an
international mechanism human rights violations that are not
covered by the relevant treaty.
In assessing whether there is material jurisdiction, it should be
borne in mind that evolutive interpretation has led to an
686
See, Blake v. Guatemala, IACtHR, Series C No. 36, Judgment of 24
January 1998, para. 67; X v. Switzerland, ECommHR, Application No.
7601/75, Admissibility Decision, 12 July 1976. On continuing violations
in the context of enforced disappearances, see, Serrano Cruz Sisters
v. El Salvador, IACtHR, op. cit., fn. 853, paras. 100 and 105.
687
See, Article 14.2, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility. See,
Lovelace v. Canada, CCPR, Communication No. R.6/24, Views of 30
July 1981. See, Moldovan and others (2) v. Romania, ECtHR, op. cit.,
fn. 937, paras. 104-106.
688
See, Article 14.3, ibid.