State went on to say that even so, “the Ministerio Público is continuing to take steps to [determine] the whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez.” 45 34. As to the admissibility of the petition, the State argued that pretrial investigation AL41/SJI/030/99 opened by the Chiapas Office of the Attorney General is ongoing, 46 and so domestic remedies have not been exhausted. With regard to the allegations of the petitioners that this criminal process is not a remedy that must be exhausted, 47 the State argued that “the pretrial investigation is the means contemplated in Mexican law to locate the whereabouts of Antonio González, and, if appropriate, determine probable responsibility for an alleged forced disappearance.” 48 On this point, the State added that the pretrial investigation is an act of judicial protection [as established in Article 25 of the American Convention] and a way of determining the party or parties responsible for the disappearance.” 49 Therefore, since the pretrial investigation is still pending in the country, this petition is not admissible. 35. As for the arguments by the petitioners to the effect that the amparo procedure is ineffectual in the Mexican legal system, since it is neither adequate nor effective to obtain the appearance of Antonio González Méndez before the competent authorities, 50 the State maintained that “the writ of amparo is the protective recourse par excellence for the individual rights established in the Federal Constitution [...] since the writ of amparo covers both strictly constitutional conditions, such as control of legality, and even goes further than habeas corpus.” 51 The State argued that in the case under review, the federal official who considered amparo writ 238/99 “dismissed it on the grounds that the previous reports provided by the allegedly responsible authorities denied the act on the grounds that they neither had him at their disposal nor knew the whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez.” 52 of IV. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY A. Personal, territorial, temporal, and subject matter jurisdiction the Commission 36. Article 44 of the American Convention establishes that “Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” Therefore, the petitioners are authorized to lodge a petition with the InterAmerican Commission, and consequently the IACHR has personal jurisdiction in this case. 37. The State has been a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, the date on which it deposited its relevant instrument of ratification. Since the petitioners allege violations of the rights established in the Convention, the IACHR has subject matter jurisdiction in the case under consideration. 38. The Commission has territorial jurisdiction, because the human rights violations occurred within a State Party to the American Convention. Likewise, the Commission has temporal jurisdiction, by virtue of the fact that on the date the 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Refer to paragraph 23 of this report. Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Refer to paragraph 24 of this report. Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State on April 14, 2005, p. 4. on April 14, 2005, p. 8. on April 14, 2005, p. 5. on April 14, 2005, p. 4. on April 14, 2005, p. 5. on April 14, 2005, p. 6. 9