9. It is noted that it was not possible to file the report before 1996 because, as a result of the armed conflict prevailing at the time, there was fear that any person who showed up personally at military headquarters would be suspected of having ties with the guerrilla and would be the target of reprisals. Regarding this, the Truth Commission for El Salvador cautioned that many human rights violations were committed against the civilian population merely on the suspicion that they were collaborating with the guerrilla forces, as part of the campaign, especially during the early years of the conflict, aimed at “draining the pond to catch the fish.” In this environment, the petitioners claim there was no trust in authorities, especially when the human rights violations were perpetrated by the Salvadoran Army. The petitioners further state that, in addition to fear, it was also physically impossible to go to the courts and that the authorities did not have the capacity to process the complaints. 10.The petitioners point out that the Attorney General’s investigation, undertaken as a result of the report made on April 10, 2002, has not been effective. Since the report was filed, the petitioners note that the Attorney General’s Office has only requested information about the case from Pro-Búsqueda and has inspected the site of the crime. The petitioners claim that they have not obtained any further information about the proceedings to date, despite the submittal of three requests. The petitioners claim that the Attorney General’s Office has not made the necessary efforts to investigate the case as there are other steps that could be taken to gather further information on the facts, and these steps have not been taken. They also note that the respective injunction has not been filed with the competent Court. 11.The petitioners contend that the motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, filed on October 16, 2002, because of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation, has not been successful in finding José Adrián Rochac. Indeed, in the ruling of March 3, 2003, the Court dismissed the motion, claiming that the petitioners had failed to submit a minimum number of elements that might lead the Chamber to admit the likelihood of the alleged forced disappearance, without having conducted any kind of inquiry that it was authorized to do. 12.In short, the petitioners claim that, in El Salvador, there is no adequate or effective remedy to find children who had disappeared during the armed conflict in El Salvador. They point out that until not long ago, before the establishment of the Truth Commission, in El Salvador there was no chance for petitioners to gain access to any domestic judicial remedy. Since then, the petitioners claim that the domestic remedies available in El Salvador have been ineffectual in investigating the facts, determining the whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández or making reparations for the consequences of the alleged violations. In this regard, they argue that more than 10 years have elapsed since the case was reported for the first time, and in that time the State’s response has been grossly negligent and desultory, although the facts characterize the incident as a public crime. The petitioners therefore request application of the exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies as provided for in Article 46.2.b of the Convention. 13.Regarding applicable rules, the petitioners contend that the Salvadoran State ratified the American Convention on June 23, 1978 and is therefore held liable by the Convention for the harm done to José Adrián Rochac Hernández. B. The State 14.The Salvadoran State states that, during the period of the armed conflict, there was no pattern of forced disappearance of persons, including children, but rather that the armed conflict itself engendered situations where families were involuntarily separated; therefore, in many cases, the consequences and scope of said separation were unknown. It adds that, during the conflict, there were certain territories controlled by the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional—FMLN), where the latter depended on the “masses” or campesino population who lived with the guerrilla or contributed to its subsistence. The State further adds that the raids conducted by the Armed Forces were not intended to eliminate this civilian population who voluntarily went along with the guerrilla, but that it is logical that, in the clash with the guerrilla, regrettable fatalities would occur. 3