5. It claims that Antonio González Méndez belonged to the Ch’ol indigenous people, was a native of the community of El Calvario, municipality of Sabanilla, Chiapas, was married to Sonia López Juárez and had four children. It asserts that he was a member of the civilian grassroots support of the EZLN and was a member of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) and, at the time of the incidents, he was in charge of the “Arroyo Frío” cooperative store, which belonged to El Calvario community, whose members were considered EZLN sympathizers. According to the petitioner, around twelve midnight on January 18, 1999, Antonio González left his residence with Juan Regino López Leoporto heading in the direction of the Sabanilla river, where Mr. López would sell the alleged victim a gun and ammunition. It further notes that prior to leaving, Antonio told his wife that he would be back home at around 1:00 AM and he asked her to stay awake to unlock the door for him. His whereabouts have been unknown since that time. 6. The petitioner alleges that Juan López was a member of Paz y Justicia, one of the major active paramilitary groups in Chiapas since 1995 and to which the commission of many crimes against individuals and communities that sympathized with the EZLN, especially those claiming indigenous autonomy and defending ownership to the land they occupied, was attributed. It contends that the acquiescence, tolerance and complicity of the Mexican State with Paz y Justicia is evident in the logistical support, military training, joint actions, weapons transportation facilities, opponent detentions and even direct financial aid provided to group; in addition to the failure to take any measures to prevent human rights violations and punish those responsible, even though the State was aware of them. 7. It asserts that on January 20, 1999, Sonia López reported her husband’s disappearance to the Municipal Judge of Sabanilla, and accused Juan López of being responsible for it. This court conducted the initial inquiry and then referred the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Yajalón, Chiapas, which opened a pretrial investigation, which concluded it in 2007 without any concrete results. The petitioner further claims that a few days after the pretrial investigation was opened and it was determined that Juan Lopez was 17 years old, he was released to the custody of the Juvenile Offender Council of the state of Chiapas, and another proceeding was instituted against him as the person allegedly responsible for the illegal deprivation of liberty of Antonio González. It contends that on March 26, 1999, Juan López was released to his family on bond and on March 10, 2000, he was finally acquitted. 8. The petitioner argues that the State did not conduct a serious and effective investigation to determine the truth of what happened, the whereabouts of Antonio González and to punish those responsible. It contended that even though the case is complex, the duty to conduct an investigation within a reasonable time was not fulfilled. This unwarranted delay, it alleges, stemmed from the lax attitude of State authorities, who, in the context of the criminal investigation, did nothing but send letters to, what was known then as, the Judicial Police of the State to instruct it to investigate case. It claims that even though Juan López was the last person to see Antonio González alive, that line of investigation was not pursued. It further argues that the investigation did not take into account the pervasive context of violence, the systematic pattern of human rights violations or the fact that the missing person was an EZLN sympathizer. 9. As for the investigation conducted by the Juvenile Offender Council, the petitioner claims that it was not exhaustive. On the contrary, it argues that state authorities merely took a few investigative steps, without considering material lines of investigation to determine the truth of what happened. It further contends that the evidence was not properly assessed when Juan López was released from custody solely on the grounds that Antonio González decided to voluntarily leave his residence with him. Lastly, it claims that the amparo proceeding for constitutional relief provided for in Mexican law at the time of the incidents was not effective in cases of forced disappearance, inasmuch as the claim had to be ratified by the offended party and, if it were not, the amparo claim would be considered to have not been filed. 10. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner argues that the forced disappearance can be attributed to the Mexican State because it breached its obligation to ensure the violated rights by facilitating the creation of illegal groups and allowing them to operate with impunity in the region where the victim disappeared and, in so doing, the authorities directly and indirectly contributed to posing an actual direct risk to the people living in particular areas of Chiapas, where the disappearance of the victim took place, in addition to breaching its duties to prevent, investigate and punish. Therefore, it alleges that Mexico violated the rights set forth in 2