provisionally stayed on November 8, 1991 on the grounds that “there is no evidence of any enmity” -at least not in 1970- between Mr. Portugal's ideas and the government at that time. 6 The petitioners contend that this reasoning was baseless, since the testimonies refer to Mr. Portugal as a "revolutionary" and "Communist." They also allege that the Court did not follow up on leads that could have thrown light on what happened. After that, the case remained closed for nine years. 9. Thirty years after Mr. Portugal's disappearance, the Deputy Prosecutor was told of the place where the remains of disappeared persons were to be found. On September 22, 1999 the Attorney General's Office ordered the start of excavations at the former military base at Tocumen that had at one time been home to the Los Pumas Infantry Company and the inquiries were reopened with the Office of the Third Superior Court Prosecutor of the First Judicial District.7 Human remains were unearthed there and underwent forensic examination. DNA testing was done by Laboratories Reliagene Technologies, and Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratories (AFDIL), paid by private interests. Their report, dated August 22, 2000, found that the remains unearthed were not those of Father Gallegos; instead they were Mr. Portugal's remains. On August 30, 2000, the Attorney General's Office asked that the case be reopened. The remains were turned over to the family and buried on September 6, 2000 thus ending the family's long search. 10. The petitioners contend that on September 3, 2001, the Attorney General's Office informed the Portugal family of the findings of the tests done by Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL), which concluded that the remains were not those of Mr. Portugal. With conflicting results from the two sets of tests, the Panamanian Truth Commission requested a third expert opinion, this one from the Mitotyping Technologies laboratory, specifically Dr. Terry Melton, an expert in mytochondrial DNA testing, to evaluate the two DNA tests already conducted. Dr. Melton concluded that the remains examined were those of Mr. Portugal, as the AFDIL test had established. Dr. Melton described the quality of the AFDIL test as good, with no evidence of mixing, whereas the testing done by FIL showed strong evidence of contamination. The petitioners allege that this finding is confirmation of his death. They argue that violation of the right to life is assumed in cases of forced disappearance, even though the judicial authorities have not issued any formal ruling certifying the identity of the remains and doubt as to Mr. Portugal's fate lingers. 11. The petitioners also allege that the material and intellectual authors of the disappearance and extrajudicial execution were members of the Los Pumas infantry company based at Tocumen, that they have been identified, and are being prosecuted. 8 Once the disappearance occurred, the next of kin had no way to exercise judicial remedies, for fear of reprisals by the military authorities. 12. The petitioners consider that the exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies based on unwarranted delay, provided for in Article 46(2)(c), applies in the instant case since more than 12 years have passed without any court ruling on the complaint filed on May 10, 1990. The petitioners allege that forced disappearance is a continuous violation 9 as long as there is uncertainty about the ultimate fate of the disappeared person and that the duty to investigate likewise persists.10 13. The petitioners contend that the forced disappearance of Mr. Portugal is a multiple and continuous violation of a number of human rights, and allows one to presume that he has been killed. They further contend that there is evidence that he was tortured 11 and that he was treated in a military hospital; one witness who was being held in a clandestine place of detention and torture heard Mr. Portugal being interrogated. 12 The petitioners aver that the next of kin are also victims of a violation of the right to humane treatment, because of the 6 See decision of the Second Superior Court of the First Judicial District, November 8, 1991. 7 See resolution of the Third Prosecutor's Office, April 3, 2001 p. 2. 8 See resolution of the Third Superior Court Prosecutor for the First Judicial District, April 3, 2001. 9 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, OEA/Ser.P/AG/doc. 3114/94 rev.1, Article 3. 10 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C Nº 4, paragraph 181. 11 See Report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine [Instituto de Medicina Legal], dated September 24, 1999 p. 2; and the transcript of the exhumation of the body on September 22, 1999. 12 See sworn statement of Daniel Elias Zúñiga Vargas, January 30, 2001; and Decision of the Third Superior Court Prosecutor, April 6, 2001. 3