13. On October 31, 2003, the IACHR received additional observations from the State regarding admissibility and merits, which were passed on to the petitioners on September 9, 2005. For their part, the petitioners submitted additional observations on October 5, 2005. On November 29, 2007, the IACHR requested the parties to provide it with updated information. On February 2, 2011, the petitioners asked for information about the status of the complaint and on February 28, 2011, the IACHR replied and requested updated information, warning them that it might contemplate shelving the file. 14. The petitioners furnished the information on March 24, 2011. That information was relayed to the State on April 5, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the State of Ecuador asked for a copy of the file on the case. It was remitted a copy on August 23, 2011. On April 13, 2012, the Commission reiterated the request to the State for information made on April 5, 2011. 15. On March 19, 2014, Mr. Jorge Vásquez, the son of the alleged victim expressed his interest in "re-taking up" the case and asked for it to be resolved. That information was relayed to the State on April 21, 2014. On May 2, the State requested extra time, which the IACHR granted on May 5, 2014, setting a deadline of June 5, 2014. On September 16, the State submitted information, which was passed on to the petitioners on September 22, 2014. On September 29 and October 30, 2014, the IACHR received requests from Mr. Jorge Vásquez that it issue a report on the case and, on December 3, 2014, a request from APRODEH for copies of the case file. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 16. The petitioners reported that Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand, 45 years of age, of Peruvian nationality, married and the father of a boy and a girl, was a merchant selling craft work between Peru and Ecuador. For that reason, he had traveled to Ecuador several times between May 1993 and January 1995, when, during that last tip, he had disappeared. 17. They reported that he had left for Ecuador on January 26, 1995 and had gone to Otavalo, in the province of Imbabura, which is well-known for its production of handicrafts. Having finished his business, he reportedly visited Huaquillas, a town on the border with Peru, where, according to a witness, he had crossed the International Bridge on January 30, 1995 to arrange for the transportation of his merchandise to Tumbes, Peru. According to the petitioners, it was then that he again crossed the border beck into Ecuador in order to have his Peruvian passport stamped in the Ecuadorian migration office. They assert that it was in that unit that he had been detained, without any reason being given. The pointed out that the Ecuadorian authorities did not inform the Peruvian Consulate in Machala of the reasons for his arrest or his whereabouts and they did not acknowledge his arrest. 18. They pointed out that, given the conflict between Ecuador and Peru at the time of Mr. Vásquez Durand's detention, as well as alleged incidents of violence against Peruvians in Ecuadorian territory, they had reason to fear for Mr. Vásquez's safety. For that reason, they had asked the IACHR for measures to protect Mr. Vásquez and argued that the facts described constituted violations of the rights protected under articles 5, 7, and 22 of the American Convention. 19. In subsequent communications, the petitioners reported that they had not been able to obtain information as to Mr. Vásquez's whereabouts. They reiterated that the State had not reported or acknowledged his detention. They also described a series of steps taken by both his wife and APRODEH to ascertain his situation, by contacting officials at the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, religious organizations, and human rights organizations in Peru and Ecuador. 20. With regard to the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted, they reported that due to the state of emergency that had been declared in Ecuador, when the National Security law was in force, the right to bring habeas corpus or similar actions (acciones de garantía) had been suspended. Later on, they explained that it was not that the right to bring actions like habeas corpus had been suspended, but it had 3