that time, lead to the assumption that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen was tortured. The petitioners add that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s disappearance also violated the right to human treatment of his parents and other family members, pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention. The disappearance, they say, also constituted an arbitrary denial of liberty, thus a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. The State, according to the petitioners, also violated Article 19 of the Convention by failing to provide special measures of protection for children, bearing in mind that Marco Antonio Molina Theissen was 14 years old when he was kidnapped. They also claim that the State has violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention by denying Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and his family effective remedies, since they filed several habeas corpus recourses that failed to lead to an appropriate investigation. Finally, invoking an emerging principle within international law, they allege that there was a violation of the right to truth. Later, the petitioners additionally invoked a violation of Article 3 of the American Convention (the right to juridical personality) as a result of the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen.5 B. State 16. The State of Guatemala, in all its communications, provided the Commission with information regarding only the Special Investigation Procedure 2-98, lodged with the criminal chamber of the Guatemalan Supreme Court on February 5, 1998. 17. The State said that as a part of that special investigation procedure, on April 5, 1999, María de la Cruz Ortiz, a prosecution agent with the Public Prosecution Service, reported to the Supreme Court on the steps taken therein and concluded that they had been unable to establish the boy’s whereabouts.6 The Supreme Court’s criminal chamber issued a resolution convening a hearing for April 26, 1999.7 At that hearing, the State said, “the special investigation procedure was ruled admissible and the Human Rights Attorney [Guatemala’s Ombudsman] was instructed to begin an investigation. Jurisdictional control over the Special Investigation Procedure No. 2-98 was given to the Fifth First-Instance Court for Criminal, Drug, and Environmental Offenses.” At the hearing, the representative of theGrupo de Apoyo Mutuo (GAM) requested a new hearing for the submission of evidence, which was set for May 7, 1999. At that hearing, the Supreme Court of Justice asked the Human Rights Attorney to present his report on June 25, 1999. On that date, the Ombudsman requested a three-month extension.8 18. Finally, on October 12, 1999, the State reported that the Attorney had presented the relevant documents on September 25, 1999, and that they were being studied by the judge. It also said that the results of the proceedings would be forwarded to the Commission once they were handed down by the court; however, the State has not yet forwarded them. 19. In its communications, the State failed to provide the IACHR neither with information on an earlier special investigation procedure that was lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice on January 14, 1998, or with information or on the processing and results of the five habeas corpus remedies filed on Marco Antonio Molina Theissen’s behalf. With respect to the latter recourses, the State neither refutes that they were actually lodged on behalf of the alleged victim, nor does it argue a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission 5 Communication of June 17, 1999, p. 3. 6 Report from the Government of Guatemala of July 1, 1999, p. 2. 7 Note of April 26, 1999. 8 Report from the Government of Guatemala of July 1, 1999, pp. 2-3, and its Report of August 16, 1999, in which the State said that: “Only when the Human Rights Attorney submits his report on the special investigation procedure will we be able to provide additional information on this case.” 3