14. With regard to the State's contention that this case does not constitute a forced disappearance because Ms. Gutiérrez was not a member of the "guerrillas," the petitioners said that that argument is "misleading." They argued that the State has disappeared many individuals who have been classed as civilians. Furthermore, they said that there was no evidence to support the State's argument on the theory of an abduction committed out of passion, but "only the testimony of a witness that justifies nothing." 15. The petitioners also argued that the State violated the rights of Ms. Gutiérrez and her family to a fair trial and judicial protection, as envisaged in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. They said that the habeas corpus petitions were not effective owing to the long time taken to dispose of them and the fact that Ms. Gutiérrez's whereabouts were not identified. 16. They also said that the criminal investigation has been neither meaningful, nor impartial, nor effective, either for that purpose or for punishing the culprits. On the contrary, they said that the proceeding remains at the preliminary investigation stage, in violation of the reasonable-time rule. They added that they have not had access to "prompt and true justice." They said that, despite the efforts of the family and their representatives, the State has not done much in the way of collecting evidence and what little it has done has centered on Mrs. Gutiérrez supposed love affair and travel abroad. 17. Finally, they said that Ms. Gutiérrez's family have suffered greatly from this situation in that they have been left in the dark about what actually happened and her whereabouts They said that her family live in a state of anxiety, anguish and fear because they believe that what befell Mrs. Gutiérrez could also happen to them. B. The State 18. As to the admissibility of the petition, the State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted since the criminal proceeding opened into the disappearance of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez was still ongoing. As regards the merits of this case, the State argued that in the course of the investigation various steps had been taken in an attempt to discover her whereabouts, including: (i) interviews with friends and family members; (ii) sweeps and search warrants; and (iii) exhumations and requests for information from the Real Estate Registry (Catastro y Registro de la Propiedad) and the Guatemalan Department of Social Security (Instituto Guatemalteco de Seguridad Social). It said that, in spite of that, it had not been possible to establish Ms. Gutiérrez's whereabouts. 19. In briefs submitted in 2007 and 2008, the State said that the Public Prosecution Service (Ministerio Público) did not provide information on the results of new steps purportedly taken owing to the "confidentiality of the case.” 20. It also said that two petitions for habeas corpus were presented on behalf of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, in which the courts ordered searches for her at mental health facilities, hospitals, pretrial detention centers, and police stations. It said that in spite of these efforts it had still not been possible to locate Ms. Gutiérrez. 21. Regarding the identities of the persons responsible for the disappearance of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, the State held that there was no evidence of involvement of state officials. It said that Juan Alberto Arancibia, a Chilean national who had reportedly had an affair with Ms. Gutiérrez, was suspected of being an accessory after the fact. The State said that a warrant had been issued for his arrest but that it had not been served because efforts to locate him had proved futile. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae of the Commission 3