admitted on condition that it contains the following information: the act that is the subject of the complaint; the authority that ordered it, if possible the initiating party; the place where the injured party is located; and the authority or agent that is executing or attempting to execute the act. In such cases the request may be made by appearing before a judge, with the proceeding recorded for that purpose. 25. However, according to the petitioners, the writ of amparo stipulated in Mexican law is a recourse that is inherently ineffectual 29 in forced disappearance cases, since it requires indication of “the place where the injured party is located and the authority responsible [for the alleged deprivation of freedom].” 30 26. Further to this argument, the petitioners claimed that even when the amparo remedy has been formally exhausted, it is not adequate to rectify the damages. By virtue of the foregoing, the petitioners believe that the complaint should be examined in the light of the exception established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention, namely, that in Mexico, “due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated” does not exist. B. Position of the State 27. The State argued in the case under review that it is not a case of forced disappearance of persons, “but only [has to do with] one disappeared person […].” 31 The State further asserted that “it is plausible to think that one of the reasons for the absence of [Mr.] González Méndez could be that he left his home to join the EZLN [Zapatista National Liberation Army], rather than starting from the assumption that the only reason for his absence is a forced disappearance, in which Juan Regino López Leoporto participated [...].” 32The State also claimed that in the case in point, the CNDH stated in a brief that “in view of the sudden disappearance of Antonio González Méndez, the purchase of a firearm by the youth, Juan Regino López Leoporto, and the notable difference in ages and physical traits, and since the two are friends, it is probable that the injured party joined the ranks of the Zapatista National Liberation Army." 33 On this point, the State concluded that “there is insufficient information to establish the forced disappearance of a person.” 34 28. The State maintains that, according to statements given by Sonia López Juárez and Juan Regino López Leoporto on January 18, 1999 at 12:00 a.m., Juan Regino López Leoporto went to the “Arroyo Frio” cooperative store in the community of El Calvario, Municipality of Sabanilla, Chiapas, where Antonio González Méndez was working to sell him a 20mm caliber rifle and two boxes of cartridges. The two then headed for the municipal cemetery where Juan Regino López Leoporto had hidden the firearm. The State asserts that Antonio González Méndez gave Juan Regino López Leoporto the amount of 8,000 Mexican pesos, plus 500 Mexican pesos for two boxes of cartridges. Afterwards each one went to their own homes and since then, there has been no news of the whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez. 29. In addition, the State argued that on January 22, 1999, the Chiapas official of the Ministerio Público opened pretrial investigation AL/41/SJI/030/1999. During this process, the State contended that various steps were taken to establish the whereabouts of the alleged victim, including the following ones: a) the pretrial investigation was referred to the Chiapas Attorney General [Procurador General de Justicia] on April 22, 2002; b) the original and a copy of the 29 30 31 32 33 34 Observations by the petitioners on March 8, 2005, p. 4. Observations by the petitioners on March 8, 2005, p.3. Observation submitted by the State on September 10, 2002, p. 1. Observation submitted by the State on September 10, 2002, p. 1. Observation submitted by the State on September 10, 2002, p. 1. Observations submitted by the State on March 31, 2003, p. 2. 7