22. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that because the remedies were ineffective, they are, under Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, exempt from the rule requiring exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law. The petitioners allege that Mr. Portugal was forcibly disappeared 30 years ago, during the dictatorship, and his next of kin were unable to exhaust local remedies. The inquiry that the Attorney General's Office instituted in 1990, when democratic government was restored in Panama, was stayed for no good reason, seven months into the inquiry19 in 1991, and then reopened again in 1999 when Mr. Portugal's remains were discovered in a military barracks. Although the criminal case has been underway for 12 years, the court authorities have still not rendered a definitive determination as to the identity of the remains found; they have not yet punished those responsible, and have not awarded the victim's next of kin just and fair compensation. 23. The State contends that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted and that it is fulfilling its duty of judicial protection since the matter is being investigated both through an inquiry that the Attorney General's Office is conducting by way of the Office of the Third Superior Court Prosecutor, and through the work of the Truth Commission. It therefore concludes that the complaint lodged should be declared inadmissible. 20 24. In examining the parties' positions, the IACHR notes that Mr. Portugal disappeared 30 years ago and that a continuous situation persists even to this day, as there has been no definitive judgment naming those responsible for these acts or identifying and establishing the whereabouts of the remains. Nevertheless, the Commission reminds the Panamanian State that one of the purposes of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights is to establish the liability of States for human rights violations committed under their jurisdiction and not to establish individual responsibility for those violations. Also that, based on the principle of the continuity of the State, international liability exists irrespective of changes in government.21 That being so, Panama is subject to international liability for violations of human rights committed by any government, be it a past government or the current government, regardless of whether that regime is de jure or de facto. The Commission therefore considers that, prima facie, there has been an unwarranted delay in prosecuting the criminal case that is investigating the facts. As this is the circumstance provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, the petitioners are exempt from the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies. In the stage where the merits of the case are considered, the Commission will examine the efficacy of this remedy and its effects for purposes of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 2. Time period for lodging a petition 25. Under Article 46(1)(b), the Convention requires that a petition be "lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment." Under Article 46(2) of the Convention, the six-month filing deadline provided for in Article 46(1)(b) will not apply when any of the exceptions is present. The Commission notes that while "the Convention’s requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is independent of the requirement that the petition be lodged within six months following the judgment exhausting domestic jurisdiction,"22 the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the American Convention apply to both requirements. 26. In the present case, the Commission examined the question of the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c), concerning an "unwarranted delaying in rendering a final judgment," when it analyzed the rule in Convention Article 46(1)(a) requiring exhaustion of local remedies, ut supra paragraph 24. Given the circumstances already examined, the Commission need not re-examine the question of whether the grounds for that exception are present. The Commission therefore concludes that under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, the 19 Ibid. It argues: “... in the case at hand, there is no evidence of any 'enmity' -at least not in 1970- between Mr. Portugal's ideas and the government at that time … so that based on the procedural situation presented in the summary one has to conclude that this criminal inquiry must be temporarily stayed." 20 See the State's response of January 3, 2002 pp. 9, 10 and 11. 21 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of July 29, 1988 Velásquez Rodríguez case, paragraph 184; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 61/01, Case 11.771, Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, Chile, April 16, 2001. 22 IACHR, Report Nº 81/01, Case 12,228, Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd v. Mexico, October 10, 2001 par. 20. 6