-60Chalatenango was not carried out, merely because the general files of this
detachment were in disarray (supra para. 48(61) and 48(65)) and because access to
the records was denied, since “the procedure of requesting authorization from the
Ministry of National Defense” was required (supra para. 48(66)). On January 27,
2005, two days after the President of the Inter-American Court had asked the State
to provide helpful evidence (supra para. 48(67)), the Chalatenango Trial Court
decided to issue an official communication to the Ministry of National Defense
requesting authorization to carry out the said inspection, at the prosecutor’s request.
Likewise, owing to lack of diligence in the criminal proceedings, the statements of
five of the 51 people who appeared on the Salvadoran Red Cross payroll in June
1982 were not received – a request that the prosecutor had made to the judge in
October 2000 (supra para. 48(43) and 48(44)). The statements of three other
people who had worked for the Red Cross in June 1982 and who still worked for this
organization in 2001 were not received either (supra para. 48(45)).
97.
As part of the lack of diligence in the investigation into what happened to
Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, it should be underscored that neither the
executing officer of the habeas corpus, nor the prosecutor and the Chalatenango
Trial Court requested any action in relation to orphanages or children’s homes,
despite the information provided by the Red Cross (supra paras. 48(18) and 48(47));
nor was any member of the Armed Forces summoned to declare. Likewise, it was
only on January 21, 2005, two days after the President of the Inter-American Court
had asked the State to submit information on any action that had been taken in the
criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court after September 6, 2004
(supra para. 22), that, for the first time, the prosecutor requested that an official
communication should be sent to the Attorney General’s office asking it to provide
information on whether the names of the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz,
appeared in the adoption records between May 1982 and May 1993. This request
contains no information, other than the names, that would allow the alleged victims
to be traced based on other characteristics. On January 27, 2005, the Chalatenango
Trial Court decided to send an official communication to the Attorney General’s office
requesting this information (supra para. 48(49)). In this regard, it should be stressed
that these procedures, which were omitted, were very important, because Ernestina
and Erlinda may be alive, since the children who disappeared in the 1982 “guinda de
mayo” and who were traced by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda were found alive.
98.
Furthermore, the Chalatenango Trial Court did not conduct any investigations
in the institutions mentioned by the president of the Red Cross female volunteers in
her statement, to which the children who were found were taken (supra para.
48(47)). It should also be pointed out that the court did not order any measures
unless the prosecutor requested them; furthermore, it did not order several
measures that were requested with regard to the Armed Forces (supra para. 48(53),
48(54) and 48(55)).
99.
The Court has noted that, since the application filed before the Court was
notified to the State, the prosecutor and the judge in the criminal proceedings seem
to have directed the investigation at taking measures to determine the existence and
identity of the alleged victims rather than at the crime that was the subject of the
proceedings. As the prosecutor explained to the Court in his testimony during the
public hearing (supra paras. 36 and 48(69)), he initially focused the investigation on
seeking information in the records of the Armed Forces because he thought that
“there ha[d] to be something there.” However, in October 2003, the Deputy
Ombudsman told him he should visit the place where the Serrano Cruz family lived in