7 in one communication it indicated that disappearance was already contemplated under its criminal laws and in a subsequent communication that it would propose a draft Criminal Code in which crimes against personal safety such as forced disappearance were characterized; d) it is unnecessary for the victim’s mother to ratify the complaint under domestic jurisdiction, because it should be prosecuted de oficio, because it is an offense involving a criminal action; e) the situation in Bolivia at the time the facts occurred (violence and political instability) did not allow the victim’s next of kin to access effective remedies in order to determine the whereabouts of the victim, who disappeared as of February 2, 1972. For the same reason, they were unable to file an application for habeas corpus; f) guarantees of due legal process for the protection of the rights violated to the detriment of Mr. Trujillo Oroza do not exist in the domestic legislation; and g) Bolivia has still not deposited the instrument ratifying the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons before the Secretary General of the Organization of American States. 19. The Commission considered that the reply presented by Bolivia to Report No. 26/99 did not demonstrate adequate compliance with its recommendations; consequently, on May 9, 1999, it decided to submit the case to the Court. V PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 20. The application in this case was submitted to the Court on June 9, 1999. 21. The Commission appointed Alvaro Tirado Mejía as delegate; Hernando Valencia Villa, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Commission, and Milton Castillo Rodríguez, Principal Specialist of the Secretariat as lawyers; and Viviana Krsticevic, Raquel Aldana and María Claudia Pulido, members of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and José Miguel Vivanco, Director of Human Rights Watch/Americas, as assistants. In accordance with the provisions of Article 22.2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission advised that the assistants represented the victim’s next of kin. 22. On June 24, 1999, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), pursuant to the provisions of Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, requested the Commission to forward certain annexes to the application that were incomplete or illegible, as soon as possible. On June 25, 1999, once the President had examined them, the Secretariat notified the application and its annexes to the State. Furthermore, it informed the State that it should appoint an agent and a deputy agent and designate a judge ad hoc within one month, submit preliminary objections within two months, and reply to the application within four months. On June 30, 1999, the Commission replaced the incomplete or illegible annexes.