Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala, who, pursuant to Article 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was entrusted by the Supreme Court to pursue the inquiry into the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García, without his work, to date, having produced any result. 26. In view of the foregoing, based on Article 46 of the Convention and Article 31 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission concludes that the exception provided for at Article 46.2.c of the American Convention applies here. 2. Time period for submission 27. According to Article 46.1.b of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must be submitted within six months from the date on which the complainant was notified of the final decision issued at the national level. The six-month rule guarantees legal certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 28. Pursuant to Article 32.2 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, in those cases in which the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule apply, the petition must be submitted within a time that is reasonable, in the Commission’s judgment. According to this article, in its analysis, the Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 29. As for the petition under study, the Commission has established that exception (c) of Article 46.2 applies, and therefore it must evaluate whether the petition was submitted within a reasonable time based on the specific circumstances of the situation submitted for its consideration. 30. In this regard, in the petition it is alleged that Edgar Fernando García was the victim of a forced disappearance, a criminal offense that is considered continuing and permanent so long as the victim’s fate or whereabouts are not determined, without the persons responsible having been investigated, prosecuted, and punished to date, and without the State having controverted the admissibility requirements. In the instant case, the petition was filed on August 22, 2000, while the inquiry promoted by the petitioners themselves was pending before the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala, a procedure which to date is still pending. 31. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the complaint under study was submitted within a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 32. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other international procedure, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 33. Article 47.b of the Convention notes that a petition should be found inadmissible when it “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” From the information supplied by the petitioners, and considering the principle ofjura novit curia, which grants the power to determine the law applicable to the specific case, the Commission decides, without prejudging on the merits, that the acts described, if proven, tend to establish violations of the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty, the right to judicial guarantees, and the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1) and 2) thereof. In addition, the Commission considers that the facts alleged tend to 5