whereabouts of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, as required by Article 109 of the Law on Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Constitutionality.12 26. With respect to the instant aspect on admissibility, the Commission observes that, at no time during the processing of this case, the State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted neither in the habeas corpus applications nor in the special investigation procedures. The State of Guatemala merely reported, inconclusively, on the formalities already pursued and those pending execution regarding the Special Investigation Procedure 2-98. 27. It is for the IACHR to determine whether the State tacitly waived the right to invoke such an objection. The Inter-American Court has ruled, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, that “in order to validly oppose the admissibility of the petition... the State should have expressly and in a timely manner invoked the rule that domestic remedies should be exhausted.”13 Similarly, the Court has also ruled that: “The objection asserting the nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.” 14 Consequently, the IACHR rules that in the case subjudice, the Guatemalan State has not invoked the exception in question and has, in fact, tacitly waived it by failing to raise it expressly and in a timely manner in any of its communications sent to the Commission. 2. Filing period 28. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, the general rule is that a petition must be lodged within a period of six months “from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” According to Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, this deadline shall not apply when exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable. In such situation, the Rules of Procedure stipulate that the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time, considering the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the specific circumstances of the case. 29. The Commission notes that neither Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s family nor the petitioners were notified by means of a final decision reached in any of the remedies invoked under the domestic jurisdiction, because in none of them the judiciary reached a final decision. 30. With respect to the date on which the alleged violations of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s rights occurred, the petitioners report that the forced disappearance took place on October 6, 1981. The State, in turn, at no time questioned that date before the IACHR. Under Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, 15 the instrument that codifies the inter-American system’s jurisprudence and practice in this regard, forced disappearance is a crime that “shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or 12 Decree Nº 1-86 of the Constituent National Assembly; Art. 109: Investigation with respect to disappeared persons. Should the proceedings followed reveal the disappearance of the person on whose behalf the habeas corpus was filed, the court shall immediately order an investigation of the case. The police authorities shall be required to report to the court, to the Attorney for Human Rights, and to the parties involved, regarding the investigations carried out, which shall be ongoing until the truth is secured with respect to the whereabouts of the disappeared person; in turn, the Tribunal of Habeas Corpus shall report to the Supreme Court of Justice regarding all the formalities and any emerging circumstances. 13 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000, Series C Nº 67 paragraphs 54-55. The Court notes that: “Although it is true that the briefs presented by Nicaragua to the Commission while the petition was being processed indicated, among other information, the progress of the proceedings before the domestic courts... it is evident that the State did not clearly file the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted during the first stages of the proceeding before the Commission. There is no record in the file that this objection had been invoked expressly until the end of 1997.” (Emphasis added.) 14 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1, paragraph 88; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 3, paragraph 90;Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 2, paragraph 87;Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C Nº 25, paragraph 40. 15 Adopted at Belém do Pará, Brazil, on July 9, 1994, during the twentieth regular session of the General Assembly. In force since March 28, 1996; ratified by Guatemala on February 25, 2000. 5