-46relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the Commission alleged that:
a)
“The El Salvador Judiciary prevented the Serrano Cruz family from
discovering the whereabouts of Ernestina and Erlinda.” “The criminal
investigation against the members of the Atlacatl Battalion has never made
any progress.” “The entire series of judicial actions that have been carried out
do not meet the parameters of diligence and effectiveness required by
international law for the investigation of human rights violations.” The State
has not identified or punished those responsible for what happened to
Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz;
b)
“Even though, in this case, the Salvadoran State has the responsibility
of determining what happened to the Serrano Cruz sisters as of June 1982, it
has not done so.” Albeit this was its obligation, the State did not submit
evidence to disprove the reported fact, “nor did it provide any evidence that it
had conducted an investigation to determine what happened”;
c)
“In its observations on the merits of the case, […] the State merely
described an investigation characterized by the mechanical repetition of court
proceedings, with no action that would show its determination to conduct an
investigation, clarify the facts and punish those responsible; even though it
had full authority over all the basic elements of the investigation”;
d)
After the application had been filed, the proceedings conducted in the
Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters “by the Salvadoran judicial authorities were
aimed at sowing doubts about the very existence of the Serrano Cruz sisters;
incriminating the family, owing to alleged collaboration with the FMLN
guerrilla, and even modifying the testimony that María Esperanza Franco de
Orellana had given in the domestic jurisdiction. The testimony that Mrs.
Franco de Orellana gave before the Court confirmed clearly that she had
received offers of help for several personal matters from the prosecutor,
Miguel Uvence, and also her previous statements regarding her fear of the
prosecutors.” In the months before the public hearing before the Court, the
judicial investigation was completely paralyzed. The judicial authorities
committed grave omissions in the collection of evidence; and
e)
The State did not respect the right to judicial protection, in the context
of due process, as required by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.
“Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of both articles to the
detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz and their sister and mother.”
Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin
50.
With regard to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article
1(1) thereof, the representatives stated that they endorsed the arguments submitted
by the Commission and considered that “there had been a double violation of Articles
8 and 25 of the Convention: first, concerning the Serrano children and, second, in
relation to their next of kin.” Regarding the violation of these rights, they stated
that:
a)
The State had the obligation to conduct an exhaustive and impartial
investigation to determine the whereabouts of the children, and identify and