43. According to the information supplied by the parties, to this day the State has not opened a diligent investigation into the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Chitay. The investigation that a State is required to launch, the Inter-American Court has held, must be conducted with due diligence, because it must be effective. Due diligence requires that the investigating agency take all steps and make all inquiries necessary to try to achieve the end in view. Otherwise the investigation is not effective within the meaning of the Convention. 24 44. The Commission finds as well that the alleged victim's family set in motion the internal remedies prescribed by Guatemalan law for cases of arrest followed by disappearance. They reported the matter to the police, which was duty-bound to report it to the proper judge, so that a criminal investigation would be launched. In other words, once the event was reported, it became the State's obligation to investigate. 45. As to the State's argument that Mr. Chitay's case should be considered by the National Compensation Program before it is heard by the inter-American human rights system, the Commission notes that it has so far received no information indicating that the family of the victim has been compensated through that program. 46. It is therefore a matter of record that the internal remedies initiated since 1981 by the alleged victim's family, including the report filed with the National Police in 1981 and the habeas corpus application of 2004 have been fruitless in terms of locating Florencio Chitay Nech, 47. The record also shows that the Guatemalan judiciary was made specifically aware, at least in 1981, 1999 and 2004, of the matter and did not take the necessary steps to investigate the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Chitay. 48. Consequently, since forced disappearance is a crime of a continual or permanent nature 25 so long as the whereabouts or fate of the victim remain unknown, and since the legal actions taken by the alleged victim's family have been fruitless, the Commission concludes that the exception in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applies, because there has been an unwarranted delay in deciding the internal remedies. 2. Filing deadline 49. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must be filed within six months from the date the petitioner received notice of the final domestic judgment. This requirement guarantees legal certainty once a decision has been taken. 50. Under Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, where exceptions apply to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and no final decision is consequently available, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose "the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case." 51. The Commission has established that the exception contained in Article 46.2.c applies in this case. It must consequently decide whether the petition was filed within a reasonable time under the specific circumstances. 52. In terms of specific circumstances, the documents furnished by the petitioners and corroborated by the Historical Truth Commission report, show that in 1978 Mr. Chitay was elected First Councilman of the municipality of San Martín Jilotepeque, department of 24 Inter-American Court, Carpio Nicollet et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004, Series C No. 117, para. 129; Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Article 63.1, American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004, Series C No. 116, para 98; Tibi Case. Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 258; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005, Series C, No. 120, para. 65. 25 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Article III. 8