that time, lead to the assumption that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen was tortured. The
petitioners add that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s disappearance also violated the right to
human treatment of his parents and other family members, pursuant to Article 5 of the
Convention. The disappearance, they say, also constituted an arbitrary denial of liberty, thus a
violation of Article 7 of the Convention. The State, according to the petitioners, also violated
Article 19 of the Convention by failing to provide special measures of protection for children,
bearing in mind that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen was 14 years old when he was kidnapped.
They also claim that the State has violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention by denying
Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and his family effective remedies, since they filed several
habeas corpus recourses that failed to lead to an appropriate investigation. Finally, invoking an
emerging principle within international law, they allege that there was a violation of the right
to truth. Later, the petitioners additionally invoked a violation of Article 3 of the American
Convention (the right to juridical personality) as a result of the forced disappearance of Marco
Antonio Molina Theissen.5
B.
State
16. The State of Guatemala, in all its communications, provided the Commission with
information regarding only the Special Investigation Procedure 2-98, lodged with the criminal
chamber of the Guatemalan Supreme Court on February 5, 1998.
17. The State said that as a part of that special investigation procedure, on April 5, 1999,
María de la Cruz Ortiz, a prosecution agent with the Public Prosecution Service, reported to the
Supreme Court on the steps taken therein and concluded that they had been unable to
establish the boy’s whereabouts.6 The Supreme Court’s criminal chamber issued a resolution
convening a hearing for April 26, 1999.7 At that hearing, the State said, “the special
investigation procedure was ruled admissible and the Human Rights Attorney [Guatemala’s
Ombudsman] was instructed to begin an investigation. Jurisdictional control over the Special
Investigation Procedure No. 2-98 was given to the Fifth First-Instance Court for Criminal,
Drug, and Environmental Offenses.” At the hearing, the representative of theGrupo de Apoyo
Mutuo (GAM) requested a new hearing for the submission of evidence, which was set for May
7, 1999. At that hearing, the Supreme Court of Justice asked the Human Rights Attorney to
present his report on June 25, 1999. On that date, the Ombudsman requested a three-month
extension.8
18. Finally, on October 12, 1999, the State reported that the Attorney had presented the
relevant documents on September 25, 1999, and that they were being studied by the judge. It
also said that the results of the proceedings would be forwarded to the Commission once they
were handed down by the court; however, the State has not yet forwarded them.
19. In its communications, the State failed to provide the IACHR neither with information on
an earlier special investigation procedure that was lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice on
January 14, 1998, or with information or on the processing and results of the five habeas
corpus remedies filed on Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s behalf. With respect to the latter
recourses, the State neither refutes that they were actually lodged on behalf of the alleged
victim, nor does it argue a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. Competence of the Commission
5 Communication of June 17, 1999, p. 3.
6 Report from the Government of Guatemala of July 1, 1999, p. 2.
7 Note of April 26, 1999.
8 Report from the Government of Guatemala of July 1, 1999, pp. 2-3, and its Report of August 16, 1999, in which the
State said that: “Only when the Human Rights Attorney submits his report on the special investigation procedure will
we be able to provide additional information on this case.”
3