3 accompanied the massacres. In particular, persons were “detained in places fixed by the soldiers, without food or basic necessities, nor with any information as to what would happen to them.” In many cases people were interrogated, beaten and threatened before they were killed, indicating that the victims experienced, during and before the mass execution, extreme psychological and mental suffering that in itself constituted inhumane treatment. In the village of El Mozote, “many young women were taken from the place they were being held to the outskirts of the village, where the soldiers raped them before killing them.” The children were not only cruelly murdered but also suffered anxiety and uncertainty constituting psychological torture when they were separated from their parents. As well, the operation included the destruction of dwellings, property, work tools, farm crops, and the slaughter of domestic animals, which reduced the subsequent livelihoods of the survivors to the minimum.” The petitioners allege that the “scorched earth” policy that inspired the military offensives implied that the soldiers had complete license for total destruction. 12. With respect to the right to personal liberty established in article 7 of the Convention, the petitioners maintain that many victims were detained without a judicial order issued in advance by a competent authority, with no information on the grounds for their detention, and without being brought before a Court. On the contrary, they claim, “witness testimony reveals that, in El Mozote, the soldiers arrived on December 10, 1981 (...), took with them various persons who had been captured in the vicinity (...) when they were trying to flee the place as a result of the bombardment that had begun some hours earlier”. In El Mozote, the soldiers dragged people from their houses and interrogated the men as they lay facedown on the ground, stripping them of valuables and subsequently ordering them to lock themselves up in their houses, under pain of death. The following morning, the soldiers returned to take the people from their homes, to torture them and ultimately to execute them. 13. The petitioners allege that the State failed to fulfill its obligations under article 19 of the American Convention, as the main victims of the massacre were children. While there are no exact data on the number of children killed, the exhumations performed in 1992 identified 143 corpses, of which 136 were those of children. Moreover, the children who survived the massacres were subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, and like the rest of the surviving population had to suffer forced displacement in order to save their lives. 14. The petitioners argue that the survivors of the massacres suffered other forms of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in that they were forced to flee and evade the military operation in order to save their lives, taking themselves into the mountains or hiding in caves for several months. In some cases their fear from what had happened, together with the destruction of their means of physical subsistence, forced them into several years of exile, a further factor that the petitioners deem a violation 5 of the right enshrined in article 22 of the Convention . Moreover, the survivors were forced to watch helplessly as their homes, families and communities were destroyed, and some of them were subsequently forced to bury their relatives in common graves or inappropriate places. Some relatives of the victims who were not present at the place of the deeds also suffered psychological torture, for they had to bear uncertainty and anxiety for more than 15 years until the bodies of their relatives were identified. Nevertheless, in most cases no proper obsequies have been possible, because the remains of the victims have not yet been exhumed and identified. 15. With respect to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the petitioners maintain that the events of December 1981 were public knowledge, nationally and internationally, and that although the offenses were prosecutable ex officio under domestic law no action was taken to investigate them, to punish the perpetrators, or to make reparation to the victims. On the contrary, the State denied the massacres and ensured their impunity. The investigation was opened only in 1990, when some relatives, after returning from their places of refuge, decided to launch judicial action. From the beginning, the judicial process was tainted by grave failings and irregularities that obstructed impartial and objective proceedings, reflecting the existence of “a de facto judicial system incapable of satisfying the right to justice for the victims of grave violations of human 5 The petitioners did not initially allege violation of article 22, and it is not included in the admissibility report.