whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 16 “In addition, under Guatemala’s domestic legislation, Article 201 TER of the Penal Code […] stipulates in the pertinent part that the crime of forced disappearance ‘shall be deemed to be continuing until such time as the victim is freed’.”17 31. Consequently, in order to determine the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred, the IACHR must consider first October 6, 1981 as the moment when the perpetration of the alleged violation began and second, all the time that has elapsed since then, because the effects of such infringements “may be prolonged continuously or permanently until such time as the victim’s fate or whereabouts are established.”18 32. The Commission notes that, since Marco Antonio Molina’s disappearance, his family has, on several occasions, resorted to the Guatemalan justice system in order to establish his whereabouts. Thus, as stated above, the family not only filed habeas corpusremedies on the very day that the allegedly continuous violation began; in 1997 they repeated twice the habeas corpus application. In addition, in 1998, the alleged victim’s relatives filed two special investigation procedures; the latter was admitted by the Supreme Court’s criminal chamber on May 7, 1999. All this indicates that the alleged victim’s relatives first resorted to the domestic courts in search of justice and, later, since no adequate resolution was forthcoming, they took their case to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 33. Consequently, in light of the date on which the perpetration of the alleged crime began and taking into account the specific circumstances of this case—particularly the continuous nature of the alleged violations and the failure of the different remedies pursued under the domestic jurisdiction—the Commission rules that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of proceedings 34. Nothing in the case file indicates that the substance of this petition is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as any other petition already examined by the Commission or other international body. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 35. Article 47(b) of the Convention states that a petition shall be declared inadmissible when it “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” The petitioners claim that the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen at the hands of agents of the State of Guatemala constitutes a violation of the right to juridical personality (Article 3), the right to life (Article 4), the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to personal liberty (Article 7), the rights of the child (Article 19), the right to a fair trial (Article 8), the right to judicial protection (Article 25), and the right to truth, all in conjunction with the State’s duty of respecting and ensuring those rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Commission considers that the allegations made by the petitioners, if true, could tend to establish violations of rights protected by the American Convention. Moreover, the Commission considers that the allegations tend to establish a violation of the commitments set forth in Article 1 of Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which the Guatemalan State assumed by ratifying that international instrument. The IACHR therefore considers that this requirement has been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 16 Ibid. 17 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Blake Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C Nº 27, paragraph 38. 18 Ibid., paragraph 39. 6