effectiveness of the investigation, find those responsible for the incidents, punish them, and provide redress for the victims or their relatives. Regarding the criminal investigations, they claim that, although it is true that the case is not closed, Salvadoran authorities have not conducted an in-depth investigation to determine the whereabouts of the child. As claimed by the petitioners, the inactive role of the Attorney General’s Office shows that available domestic remedies consist of mere formalities. 26.The present case alleges the presumed responsibility of the members of the Armed Forces of El Salvador in the forced disappearance of a child in the midst of a domestic armed conflict in El Salvador. This period was characterized by systematic violations of human rights and impunity, facilitated in part by the ineffectiveness of El Salvador’s judiciary system. 4 In view of the particular circumstances of the case and the above-mentioned context, the Commission deems that, at the time the alleged incidents took place, it was not possible or necessary to file any motion, which serves as grounds for the exception to the rule of exhaustion of internal remedies, as provided for by Article 46.2 of the American Convention. 27.The IACHR considers that, up to the date of the adoption of the present report, domestic remedies have not functioned effectively as required to investigate a report of forced disappearance. Indeed, almost 26 years have elapsed since the incidents took place, and since then the family of José Adrián Rochac Hernández has used various mechanisms that have turned out to be ineffective to determine his whereabouts: the child’s father went to the only existing institution to investigate cases of missing children, the nongovernmental organization Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, in 1996. On May 31, 1996, the Asociación Pro- Búsqueda filed a complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of El Salvador (Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de El Salvador—PDDH) regarding 145 cases of children victims of forced disappearance, all of them in the context of the country’s domestic armed conflict. From these cases, the Office of the Prosecutors selected five to conduct investigations; nevertheless, the case of José Adrián Rochac was not among them. Likewise, on April 10, 2002, the father of the alleged victim filed a request for the investigation of the whereabouts of his son José Adrián Rochac, with the Soyapango Subregional Office of the Attorney General’s Office, as well as a motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on October 17, 2002. 28.Regarding the motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed by the father of the alleged victim, the IACHR concludes that, although it is the suitable remedy, it did not function adequately to determine the whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández. The InterAmerican Court has ruled that the remedy of habeas corpus is essential to guarantee the life and integrity of arrested persons to prevent their disappearance or uncertainty about where they are being detained. 5 In this regard, the IACHR observes that the remedy of habeas corpus has not functioned effectively in El Salvador in cases of forced disappearance, even after the end of the conflict in 1992. The IACHR has received information provided by both parties that it is only recently, on March 20, 2002, by means of a judgment issued in the proceedings of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, that the Supreme Court changed its previous case law rulings when it accepted the violation of the right to physical liberty, even when there was no evidence of detention. This case therefore represented the first possibility of effectively using of the remedy of habeas corpus in cases of disappeared persons in El Salvador. 6 4 In its annual reports published during this conflict, the IACHR issued statements on several occasions about the violence and lack of due process of law for the enforcement of rights. For example: The right to justice has been profoundly affected by the state of emergency that reigns in El Salvador, as indicated earlier. Here it is worth reiterating the Commission’s remarks from its last Annual Report: the American Convention does not authorize the suspension of judicial guarantees that are essential for protecting basic rights, particularly not for prolonged periods, as has been the case in El Salvador. In addition, there is a lack of judicial independence and authority; members of the judiciary have themselves been the target of criminal acts. The marked limitations on judicial guarantees, as stated previously, have left many proceedings unresolved, causing the population to lose confidence in the judicial system 5 I/A Court H.R., OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, “Habeas Corpus with Suspension of Guarantees,” para. 44. 6 Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, March 20, 2002, in the habeas corpus issuance proceedings No. 379-2000, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez. 6