It does, but within what bounds? The CAP theorem doesn't specify. One could assume that it means before the partition is restored, but that is only one possible valid interpretation. The PACELC theorem, which is by no means the last word on the story, clarifies this well:
"PACELC builds on the CAP theorem. Both theorems describe how distributed databases have limitations and tradeoffs regarding consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. PACELC however goes further and states that a trade-off also exists, this time between latency and consistency, even in absence of partitions, thus providing a more complete portrayal of the potential consistency tradeoffs for distributed systems."
And I would take that argument one step further and say that latency and partitioning are effectively identical, and from the point of view of any given operation, it is impossible to say whether the system is in partitioned state until max lateny (timeout) has elapsed, because failure to make progress within timeout is the only meaningful definition of partion-induced unavailability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem
"PACELC builds on the CAP theorem. Both theorems describe how distributed databases have limitations and tradeoffs regarding consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. PACELC however goes further and states that a trade-off also exists, this time between latency and consistency, even in absence of partitions, thus providing a more complete portrayal of the potential consistency tradeoffs for distributed systems."
And I would take that argument one step further and say that latency and partitioning are effectively identical, and from the point of view of any given operation, it is impossible to say whether the system is in partitioned state until max lateny (timeout) has elapsed, because failure to make progress within timeout is the only meaningful definition of partion-induced unavailability.