50 writing [their] testimony” and that “the agents that helped [them], […] noted something but did not help [them] and [they] did not even move them to a room or to a place where they c[ould] offer [their] testimony, they remained only facing the check-in desk where they arriv[ed], there they at[tended] [them] and did not [give them] much time, they told [them] ‘that’s it’ and ‘you can go.”198 180. In this regard, the State in the procedure before the Court has sustained that “no report existed before the competent authority in order to carry out an investigation,” as alleged by the representatives, given that no evidence exists of it. Nevertheless, in the procedure before the Commission, the State in its communication given on January 10, 2006, responded to that indicated by the representatives in the petition regarding the presentation of a report before the National Police199 and in its brief of April 21, 2006, the State noted that “[a]s demonstrated by the petitioners in the case, the domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as stated prior, there is only one complaint in the criminal proceeding.” 181. In consideration of that expressed by the parties and of the actions carried out in the internal jurisdiction, the Court concludes it proven that the next of kin of Flornecio Chitay went to the National Police Station to report the detention and disappearance of the alleged victim, without formally raising an action to record the complaint. 182. On April 25, 1981, the directors of the DCG party, at a press conference, publicly denounced the kidnapping of Florencio Chitay Nech (supra para. 76). 183. After the recognition of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court by the State, in the year 1999, the Report of the CEH registered the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech. (supra para. 77). 184. Previously, on October 12, 2004, Pedro Chitay raised an appeal of habeas corpus before the First Court of Criminal Peace on daytime duty in Guatemala City,200 with the goal that the authority that had detained Florencio Chitay Nech be ordered to give a detailed report about the facts that motivated his detention. On October 14, 2004, this court took as received and raised an appeal of a habeas corpus and “order[ed] the authorities […] to present to the offended, an original accompanied with a copy, of the process and background that there was or to give a report about the facts.”201 Of parts of the case file No. 2452-2004, it can be stated that the court carried out an investigation before the National Civil Police, the General Board of the Penitentiary System, and the Center for Provisional Detention, which indicated they did not have any records regarding the 198 Statement of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 55. Cf. supra note 58. Statement of Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez, 199 In the communication of the State of 10 of January of 2006 before the Commission stated that “due to the fact tha Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech, appears in the Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, as a disappeared person on 10 of December of 1980, (date that does not coincide with that established by the petitioners in the petition, established that Florencio Chitay Nech disappeared on 1 of April of 1981, and is also note din the complaint presented before the National Police and the personal exhibition presented in the Case)” (brief of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs, prueba para mejor resolver remitida por la Comisión el 9 of March of 2010, Tome V, f. 903). 200 Cf. Request of Personal Exhibition in favor of Florencio Chitay Nech of 12 of October of 2004 (annexes of the petition, annex 6, fs. 127 and 128). 201 Cf. Order of the First Court of Criminal Peace Orders of the Peace Judge of Orders of the Peace Judge of 14 of October of 2004 (annexes of the petition, annex 6, f. 133).