under domestic law. They also claim that the domestic remedies are ineffective, specifically as regards forced disappearances, since the remedy of amparo is neither ideal nor appropriate in light of the legal requirements whereby the beneficiary must ratify its presentation, indicating both his whereabouts and the authority involved.9 Consequently, they maintain that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention is applicable in this case. 8. The petitioners also point out the time that has passed since 1974, when the alleged victim was arrested and then disappeared. They note that since the first formal complaints lodged with the authorities, there has been no progress with the investigation, no steps have been taken with respect to the perpetrators, and no answers have been obtained regarding the truth of the matter or about the whereabouts of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco. 9. With respect to the applicability of the Inter-American Convention against Forced Disappearance, the petitioners claim that the crime remains ongoing. They maintain that the relatives of the disappeared person are also victims, in that they are subject to a distressing uncertainty that will not go away until the fate of their disappeared loved one is clarified. 10. The petitioners maintain that there has been an unwarranted delay in the investigation of this incident, which would be grounds for the exception to the domestic remedy exhaustion requirement provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The petitioners base their argument on the period of twelve years that has passed since the first complaint and the almost three years since the creation of the office of the Special Prosecutor for Investigating Incidents Probably Constituting Federal Crimes Committed Directly or Indirectly by Public Servants against Individuals with Ties to Social or Political Movements of the Past (“FEMOSSP”), during which time no concrete results were attained. 11. Finally, the petitioners hold that the FEMOSSP procedure has proved ineffective and they note in this regard that in spite of the time that has gone by, there have been no concrete results in the case of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco. The petitioners believe that the work of the Special Prosecutor focused on verifying whether or not a disappearance took place, but that no efforts have been made to punish the guilty or to locate the alleged victim. However, they state that they continue to participate, in good faith, in the Special Prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. B. State 12. In its communications, the Mexican State does not question the competence of the InterAmerican Commission to hear this petition, but it does argue the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as grounds for the complaint’s inadmissibility. 13. At first the State claimed that the first formal complaint regarding the incident was made several years after the disappearance occurred, which made it materially impossible for the State 9 The law in question provides that: Article 17. In the case of actions that pose a threat to life, attacks on personal liberty outside judicial procedures, deportations or exiles, or any of the actions prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, and the victim is unable to pursue the amparo, any other person, including minors, may do so on his behalf. In such a case, the judge shall order all the measures necessary to summon the alleged victim and, thereafter, shall require him to ratify the amparo filing within the following three days; if the party involved ratifies, the proceedings will be pursued; if he does not ratify it, the filing shall be taken as not having been lodged, and all the measures ordered shall be left without effect. Article 117. In the case of actions that pose a threat to life, attacks on personal liberty outside judicial procedures, deportations or exiles, or any of the actions prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, it shall be sufficient, for the application to be admitted, for it to identify the action regarding which the claim is made; the authority that ordered it, if the person filing it is able to; the place where the victim is located; and the authority or agency that should execute or attempt to execute the action. In such cases the application may be made by means of an appearance, with a deed being drawn up before the judge. Amparo Law, regulating Articles 103 and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, updated as of June 23, 2005 3