justify this attitude.” The judge had refused to provide the members of the EAAF with a date for the inspection and exhumation, giving “credibility to the rumors of minefields in the area of El Mozote, even though the inhabitants of the place who travelled about the said area had indicated that this was false, and this had been verified by the national and foreign press that had visited the place,” and “the tracking and search for mines” carried out on March 7, 1992, in which it was established that “the area was totally free of mines”; and that no response at all had been received to the requests made to the President of the Republic for “the list of soldiers and officers who participated in the military operation during which the massacre of El Mozote took place.”338 On April 27, 1992, a communiqué of the Communities of Northern Morazán denounced, among other matters, the judge’s refusal to “swear in the foreign forensic experts” and “to set a date to begin the inspection and exhumation of the osseous remains of the massacre of El Mozote,” as well as “the passivity of the Office of the Prosecutor General in the face of all the irregularities and obstructions in the trial regarding the massacre.”339 The following day, a communication addressed to the Second Court by the Patronato para el Desarrollo de las Comunidades de Morazán y San Miguel (PADECOMSM), the Comunidades Eclesiales de Base de El Salvador (CEBES), the Ciudad Segundo Montes, and the Movimiento Comunal de Mujeres de Morazán, inhabitants and organizations of northern Morazán, denounced similar facts and circumstances.340 225. Subsequently, in communications of April 30 and May 29, 1992, the National Army for Democracy (END/FMLN) informed the trial court that on April 23, and May 8, 26 and 27, 1992, a team of explosive experts, together with a deputy commander of the Third Military Region of the END, accompanied by two ONUSAL officials, had visited the area of the canton of La Joya, the village of Jocote Amarillo, the villages of Los Toriles and Ranchería, and the cantons of Cerro Pando and Guacamaya, “in order to confirm that there are no minefields” in those places. 341 226. On May 5, 1992 the Second Court decided to summon the Mayor of Meanguera and the persons who had testified previously so that they could indicate the “exact location of the individual and common graves where the corpses resulting from these acts of violence are buried.”342 These statements were taken on May 14, 1992.343 227. On May 7, 1992 the Second Court issued a decision requiring the legal inspection of the places where “it is said that the acts of violence under investigation allegedly occurred,” and establishing the order in which the places would be inspected, with the respective timetable. In addition, it established that various authorities, media and international agencies should be 338 Communiqué of the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado of April 8, 1992 (evidence file, tome II, annex 11 to the submission of the case, folios 1545 to 1548).) 339 Communiqué of the Organizations of the North of Morazán concerning the stagnation and obstruction of the trial of the Massacre of “El Mozote” dated April 27, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1874). 340 Cf. Communication of the Communities of Morazán and San Miguel (PADECOMSM), the Comunidades Eclesiales de Base de El Salvador (CEBES), the Ciudad Segundo Montes, and the Movimiento Comunal de Mujeres de Morazán, addressed to the Second First Instance Judge of San Francisco Gotera, of April 28, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1875). 341 Cf. Communication of the National Army for Democracy, Third Military Region of April 30, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1910); Communication of the National Army for Democracy, Third Military Region of May 29, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 2065 to 2066); Communication of the National Army for Democracy, Third Military Region of May 29, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 2067 to 2068), and Communication of the National Army for Democracy, Third Military Region of May 29, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 2069 to 2070). 342 Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on May 5, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1904). 343 Cf. Statements made by Bernardino Guevara Chicas, Domingo Vigil Amaya, Juan Bautista Márquez, María Teófila Pereira Argueta, Irma Ramos Márquez, Rufina Amaya, Pedro Chicas, Sotero Guevara Martínez, Rosa Ramírez Hernández, Hilario Sánchez Gómez, Genaro Sánchez, María Amanda Martínez, Eustaquio Martínez Vigil and Lucila Romero Martínez before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on May 14, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1927 to 1940). 73