-48to this end, requested they be confiscated;
g)
“The State has unjustifiably delayed decisions on domestic remedies,
particularly with regard to progress in the criminal case […]. The evident
complexity of the case does not exempt the State from conducting a thorough
and prompt investigation.” The failure of El Salvador to comply with this
obligation has had serious consequences for the collection of evidence;
h)
The criminal case has been filed, even though some investigations
were pending. The unjustified delay in providing justice in this case results
from the indifference of those in charge of administering justice and from
obstruction, by act or omission, by the Executive Power. Likewise, the
Legislature has made a “decisive contribution to impunity with the adoption of
the amnesty law,” which has allowed “the vast majority of crimes against
humanity committed during the war, as well as grave human rights violations,
to remain unpunished.” In this case, there is a significant possibility that
impunity will prevail, either by application of the amnesty law or by a
declaration that the case has prescribed;
i)
The remedy of habeas corpus and the criminal complaint have not
resulted in finding the Serrano Cruz sisters, or punishing those responsible.
“The denial of justice endured by the Serrano family in its search for them is
therefore obvious”;
j)
The siblings of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz have the right to
know what happened to their sisters, as did their mother, father and
deceased siblings. “This is especially important because, as can be inferred
from the testimonies that Elsy Dubón and Father Jon Cortina gave before the
Court, and also from some documentary evidence presented during the
proceeding, it is possible that Erlinda and Ernestina are alive.” The need to
know the whereabouts of Ernestina and Erlinda “provides a glimmer of hope
for the disappeared children – today, young women – to learn their identity.”
“They, their next of kin, and society as a whole must know what happened to
them and they, in particular, must know that they have a family waiting for
them with open arms”; and
k)
They requested the Court “to declare that the Salvadoran State is
responsible for the failure to conscientiously investigate, prosecute and punish
those responsible; and also for violation of the right to truth.”
Arguments of the State
51.
With regard to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article
1(1) thereof, the State alleged that it had not violated these norms and stated:
a)
The petition for habeas corpus filed by Ernestina and Erlinda’s mother
was not appropriate to identify the authors of the punishable facts; they must
be tried by the corresponding criminal instance. Also, since it was filed 13
years after the alleged detention of the Serrano Cruz sisters, it was not
appropriate for discovering their whereabouts;
b)
“The criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court […] are