The State argues that the inquiries conducted do not support the contention that there has been an unwarranted delay in the judicial process. 4. Having analysed the petition, the Commission concludes that it has competence to deal with it. Concerning the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies, the IACHR concluded that the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applies, so that the six-month rule stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention does not apply. The petition was lodged with the Commission within the reasonable period required under Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure. Ultimately, the Commission declared that the petitioners' allegations concerning the alleged violations of Articles I, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and Articles II and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, were admissible. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The following is a summary of the Commission's processing of the exchange of communications between the parties. The petitioners lodged the complaint with the Commission on May 31, 2001. It was received there on June 2, 2001. On July 19, 2001 the Commission requested information from the State, pursuant to Article 30 of its Rules of Procedure, and gave the State two months in which to respond. The State submitted its response on August 23, 2001 which was forwarded to the petitioners. They, in turn, submitted their observations on the response on September 27, 2001. On October 23, 2001, the State requested a 30-day extension to submit its observations. On November 21, 2001 the petitioners submitted additional information, which the State answered in the observations it sent on November 26, 2001. The petitioners presented their observations on December 18, 2001 and the State its response on January 3, 2002. The petitioners presented their observations on the State's responses on February 7, 2002 and the State responded with observations on March 14, 2002. III. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS 6. The positions of the parties can be summarized as follows for purposes of the present Admissibility Report: A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that between 1968-when General Omar Torrijos staged a military coup- and the end of the 1980s, the government suppressed political activity and systematically detained and arbitrarily arrested opponents of the regime, whom it labelled "revolutionaries" or "Communists."2 Because of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal's opposition to the military regime, he was subjected to politically motivated harassment, which began in 1968 when he was arrested by the National Guard, only to be released in 1969. Mr. Portugal disappeared on May 14, 1970 at age 36, when he was stopped by four members of the former National Guard's Military Intelligence section (G-2), in the vicinity of the cafe known as "Cocacola", located on Santa Ana, Panama City. He was forced into a taxi, destination unknown. During those years of military dictatorship, one could not go to the authorities to file complaints.3 Despite the sense of fear prevalent at that time, family members went to a number of places in an effort to find Mr. Portugal4 and even turned to the authorities, all to no avail.5 8. When representative democracy was restored in 1990, Mr. Portugal's daughter reported her father's disappearance to the Attorney General's Office. However, the investigation was 2 See statements made by: Graciela de León de Rodríguez, 6/21/90; Marcos Tulio Pérez Herrera, 7/16/90; Antonia Portugal García, 7/26/1990; Gustavo Antonio Pino Llerena, 9/26/90; Pedro Antonio Vázquez Cocio, 10/24/90; Ruben Dario Sousa Batista, 5/13/91, among others. See also the decision of the Second Superior Court of the First District, 3/13/1991, paragraph one. 3 See request by the Office of the Third Superior Court Prosecutor of the First District to declare that the statute of limitation on criminal liability had run, January 15, 1991, p. 5. 4 See statement of Antonia Portugal García, 12/12/90. 5 As the court records for the case show, Mr. Manuel Antonio Noriega was Director of the Panamanian Intelligence Service from August 11, 1970 to December 14, 1982. 2