17. The State asked for a ruling of inadmissibility. It argued, first, that there is no case file on Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech at the Attorney General's Office; consequently, there was no complaint that would have made it possible to launch an investigation. 18. Secondly, the State claims that there is no evidence to back up the assumption that Mr. Chitay was kidnapped by army personnel or that the abduction was the result of a government strategy, inasmuch as the only witness was five years old at the time. According to the State, Esmeterio Chitay Rodríguez's age prevented him from remembering names and dates in connection with the events, or identifying the persons involved, since his mind at that age "does not retain images of places and persons." 8 19. The State alleges that the filing of a habeas corpus application in behalf of the alleged victim 24 years after his kidnapping proves inaction on the part of his family, hampering any subsequent investigation. That inaction should not be charged to the State. In addition, the habeas corpus application was filed by the petitioners to reactivate the time frame governing access to the inter-American human rights system. 20. As for internal remedies, the State contends that they were not exhausted, because the victim's family must report the matter to the Attorney General's Office and there are, moreover, various ways of compensating the family. The State recognizes the victims' right to compensation and affirms its commitment to do so through the National Compensation Program, proposing that Mr. Chitay's case be referred to that program. 21. The State maintains that the PNR is the proper way, under domestic law, to obtain compensation for victims of the internal armed conflict, and that it is stable and legal, as shown by the reparations already paid in the departments of El Quiché and Chimaltenango. 9 The issue of justice would be resolved by filing a complaint with the Attorney General's Office, which, through the office of the prosecutor for human rights, would conduct the proper investigation. The State points out in this connection that the 2006-2016 National Plan to Search for Persons who Disappeared During the Internal Armed Conflict (hereinafter "the National Search Plan") is intended to locate missing people and facilitate the task of reuniting thousands of victims of the internal armed conflict. 10 22. The State points out the discrepancy between the date of the alleged victim's disappearance reported by the petitioners and the date shown not only in the report of the Historical Truth Commission [Comisión de Esclarecimiento Histórico] but in the complaint filed with the National Civil Police and the habeas corpus application for Mr. Chitay. 11 23. Based on the above considerations, the State asked the Commission to rule the petition inadmissible under Article 31 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, because there was a single criminal complaint on record and the internal remedies, consequently, had not been exhausted. 8 State comments dated September 14, 2005, received by the IACHR on September 19, 2005. In a note dated April 21, 2006, received by the IACHR on April 24, 2006, the State reports that in those departments of Guatemala the PNR has made payments to 209 families affected by the internal armed conflict. 10 On May 25, 2006, Government Decision No. 264-2006 set up a temporary "Commission of the Executive to Search for Persons who Disappeared during the Internal Armed Conflict." Article 4 of that decision provides that the "Search Commission will operate for a term of one year, which may be extended by decision of the President of the Republic. In any event, the Commission will operate until the Congress of the Republic approves the establishment of a National Commission for the same purpose and on the same or a larger scale." 11 According to the State, the report from the Historical Truth Commission provides an account of the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech on December 10, 1981, whereas the petition filed with the IACHR states that the alleged victim was kidnapped on April 1, 1981. On March 6, 2006, the petitioners explained the discrepancy as follows: "Florencio Nech Chitay disappeared on April 1, 1981; the report by the Historical Truth Commission shows the date December 10, 1980. That date is the date on which Mr. Chitay Nech underwent the second attempt to kidnap him at his home in San Martín de Jilotepeque. Mr. Chitay's family does not know who gave that testimony to the Historical Truth Commission. Nevertheless, the report already shows his disappearance." 9 4