of the Mexican Army, against groups which oppose the government or which 20 are more favorable to indigenous interests […]. 22. The petitioners add that initially, they also filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) and that institution’s program on alleged disappearances, but that they nonetheless were not aware of the results of these investigations. According to the petitioners, when Mrs. Sonia López, the wife of the alleged victim, appeared on March 6, 2001 in response to a summons by the CNDH, she was subject to abusive treatment by the officials of that institution. For instance, members of the institution told Mrs. López “that maybe your husband ran off ‘with another girl’ and they insinuated that Sonia had had a fight with the [alleged] disappeared person or that he had beaten her.” 21 The petitioners further allege that an official of the CNDH “suggested the possibility of prison,” 22because she said that her husband had purchased arms and he told her that “all the people in the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Center are Zapatistas.” 23 23. With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners alleged that “pretrial investigation AL41/SJI/030/99 […] is not a remedy that is required to be exhausted.” 24 On this point, the petitioners maintained that this “pretrial investigation did not fulfill the objective of determining the whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez and of guaranteeing his protection, [since the] criminal proceeding is fundamental for the identification, prosecution, and punishment of the parties responsible for [the alleged] disappearance of the victim; moreover [...] by its nature, the role of the Ministerio Público focuses on criminal legal action and not on ensuring location of the whereabouts of disappeared persons. 25 24. The petitioners contended that in forced disappearance cases, according to the case law of the inter-American system, the appropriate recourse is habeas corpus 26 or its equivalent. In this regard, the petitioners pointed out that in the case of Mexico, the amparo procedure “takes the place of habeas corpus,” 27since “it curbs the acts of authorities or laws that could violate the rights of individuals.” 28 On this point, the petitioners added that the Amparo Law states as follows: Article 17 In the case of acts that entail the danger of deprivation of life, attacks on personal freedom outside judicial proceedings, deportation, or exile, or any of the acts prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, and the injured party is unable to file a writ of amparo, any other person may do so on his behalf, even if the person is a minor. In that case, the judge shall order any measures needed to ensure the appearance of the injured party and, in whatever circumstances, shall rule that the amparo writ must be reiterated within a period of three days; if the interested party reiterates it, the writ will be processed; if it is not reiterated, the writ will be considered as never having been filed, and the measures ordered shall be considered null and void. Article 117 In the case of acts that entail the danger of deprivation of life, attacks on personal freedom outside judicial proceedings, deportation, exile, or any of the acts prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, the petition shall be 20 IACHR Report on the “Human Rights Situation in Mexico, Chapter VII: The Situation of Indigenous Peoples and their Rights, Part VI: The Situation in the State of Chiapas,” OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100 Doc. 7 rev. 1, September 24, 1998, paras. 544 and 555. 21 Observations of the petitioners on October 12, 2001, para. 3. 22 Observations of the petitioners on October 12, 2001, para. 3. Observations of the petitioners on October 12, 2001, para. 3.23 24 Observations submitted by the petitioners on February 8, 2005, p. 5. 25 Observations submitted by the petitioners on February 8, 2005, p. 6. 26 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, para. 65. 27 Observations submitted by the petitioners on March 28, 2002, p. 2. 28 Observations submitted by the petitioners on February 5, 2005, p. 2. 6