occurred repeatedly over the last forty years and continue to take place. It argues that even if the Committee considers that these acts took place before Greek ratification of the Protocol or even Greek ratification of the Charter, to the extent that they continue to have consequences up to the present day they constitute continuing violations. In support, it refers to the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. THE LAW As to the admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee's Rules of Procedure and the Government's related objections 10. The Committee observes that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, which was ratified by Greece on 18 June 1998 and entered into force for this state on 1 August 1998, the complaint has been submitted in writing and concerns Articles 11, 2§4, 3§1 and 3§2 of the Charter, provisions accepted by Greece when it ratified this treaty. In addition, the grounds for the complaint are indicated. 11. The Committee also observes that, in accordance with Articles 1 b) and 3 of the Protocol, the MFHR is an international non-governmental organisation with consultative status with the Council of Europe. It is included on the list, established by the Governmental Committee, of international nongovernmental organisations that are entitled to lodge complaints. 12. As regards the particular competence of the MFHR in the matters of the complaint, the Committee has examined the statute of the organisation and the detailed list of its various activities relating to the articles of the Charter covered by this complaint (see above, §7), which shows that the complainant has long been involved in and particularly concerned with the relevant areas, and considers that the organisation has particular competence within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol. 13. The complaint is signed by Mrs Alice YOTOPOULOS-MARANGOPOULOS, who is President of the MFHR and is authorised to represent the complainant organisation before any authority or court under Article 6§1 sub-paragraph a of its statute. The Committee therefore considers that the complaint complies with Rule 23 of the Rules. As to the Government's other objections concerning the admissibility of the complaint 14. In response to the Government's objection concerning its responsibility for the acts and omissions of the DEI, the Committee emphasises that the state is responsible for enforcing the rights embodied in the Charter within its jurisdiction. The Committee is therefore competent to consider the complainant's allegations of violations, even if the State has not acted as an operator but has simply failed to put an end to the alleged violations in its capacity as regulator. The extent of the Government's responsibilities, whether in the capacity of operator or in that of regulator will, if necessary, be examined in the proceedings on the merits of the complaint. 15. As regards the Government’s objection in connection with the Committee's competence ratione temporis, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity of