IV. ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae under the American Convention temporis, ratione loci andratione 24. The petitioners are in principle authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions with the Commission. The petition names as the alleged victim a physical person, Florencio Chitay Nech, whose rights under the American Convention the State undertook to respect and guarantee. As for the State, the Commission notes that Guatemala has been a party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Consequently, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the case. 25. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci because the petition alleges violations of rights said to have occurred within the jurisdiction of a state party to the American Convention. It has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State when the events allegedly took place. 26. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition reports possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. It also has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article XIII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, ratified by Guatemala on February 25, 2000, which provides that the crime of forced disappearance is to be considered a continual or permanent crime so long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim remain unknown. 12 B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of internal remedies 27. According to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admitted by the Commission under Article 44 domestic law remedies must have been pursued and exhausted in line with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is that national authorities should be aware of the alleged violation of a protected right and, where appropriate, should resolve the matter before it is raised internationally. 28. The State maintains that the petition is inadmissible because internal remedies were not exhausted in Guatemala. In its first comments, 13 the State argued that inasmuch as the Attorney General's Office had no case file on Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech, it should be presumed that no complaint had been filed regarding the events. In later communications, however, the State acknowledged the existence of a criminal complaint filed over the kidnapping with the National Police. 14 In addition, the State contends that the 2004 habeas corpus application filed for Mr. Chitay by his family sought to reactivate the time frame for access to the InterAmerican human rights system. Lastly, it argues that a complaint lodged with the Human Rights Prosecutor of the Attorney General's Office, in particular, would trigger an investigation, and that referring the case to the National Compensation Program and the 2006-2016 National Search Plan would lead to comprehensive redress for the family of the victim and perhaps establish his whereabouts. 29. The petitioners, in turn, argue that internal remedies have been exhausted because, immediately after the events, Mr. Chitay's family filed with the police the required complaint, which was publicized by the media in a press conference given by leaders of the Guatemalan Christian Democrats. In addition, Mr. Chitay's disappearance was noted in the report of the 12 IACHR, Report No. 91/06, Admissibility, Edgar Fernando García, Guatemala, October 21, 2006, para.16. State brief of September 14, 2005, received by the Commission on September 19, 2005 14 State brief of April 21, 2006, received by the IACHR on April 24, 2006: "As shown by the petitioners, internal remedies have not been exhausted in this case; as we indicated earlier, there is a single criminal complaint." 13 5