4 rights, especially when those abuses originated with the State.” According to the petitioners, the judge handling the case unjustifiably delayed such actions as inspecting the scene of the crimes, taking testimony, and exhuming the victims’ remains, on the grounds that the area was rendered unsafe by landmines. 16. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of the time interfered arbitrarily in the proceedings, publicly declaring that the demands for inspections and exhumations at the site of the massacres were politically motivated. Other senior officials, including the President of the Republic and the Minister of National Defense, General René Emilio Ponce, exerted improper pressure on the examining judge. The then-President of the Republic and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Alfredo Cristiani, refused to provide key information during the criminal investigation, specifically on the military operations conducted in December 1981, and the roster of soldiers attached to the units involved. The examining judge, it is claimed, declared that he was under pressure from senior officials to postpone the date of the exhumations and to dismiss the case by virtue of the amnesty law. 17. The petitioners argue that, in effect, application of the LAGCP produced impunity and nullified judicial guarantees and protection. Despite repeated appeals to the Second Court of First Instance of San Francisco Gotera, it was not possible to obtain the file, despite the fact that in October 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice, in its ruling on an appeal for nullity against the LAGCP, opened a window for the relatives of the victims to seek justice in this case. 18. In the context of the massacre, the petitioners allege that at least 16 children under the age of 15 were the victims of forced disappearance. “While it is true”, say the petitioners, “ that the Salvadoran State has not ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, that Convention may be used as an instrument of interpretation in this case, as its article II defines the concept of forced disappearance”. They add that there is valid proof that at the time of the massacre there was a pattern of forced disappearance of children in areas deemed to be conflict zones in El Salvador. 19. In general terms, the petitioners argue that the State failed to fulfill its obligations under article 1 of the Convention, as it did not prevent the deeds nor offer any measures of reparation, and it did not guarantee the right to the truth through a full, exhaustive, public and impartial judicial process. They maintain that “the right to the truth entails a dual aspect of protection: it is an individual right for the victims and their relatives, which offers an important way of repairing the damage suffered when there is a violation; and it is a collective right of all society, as an important instrument for preventing future violations, while contributing to the development of democratic systems”. The State, they allege, took no steps to protect the civilian population; on the contrary, it incited, condoned and carried out the murder of hundreds of people, whose deaths were preceded by serious violations of human rights. 20. Finally, the petitioners argue that the State violated article 2 of the American Convention by promulgating and applying the LAGCP of March 20, 1993, the objective of which was “to guarantee impunity of State agents involved in the criminal deeds committed during the armed conflict”, and in particular in criminal proceedings concerning the massacre at El Mozote and vicinity. Application of the amnesty law in this case was an impediment to the investigation, trial and punishment of those who planned and carried out the massacre, as well as to any possibility for reparations, and thus jeopardized the entire peace process and true national reconciliation. B. The State 21. The Salvadoran State has rejected, in general terms, the allegations of the petitioners with respect to violation of various provisions of the American Convention. 22. It argues that, pursuant to article 1.1 of the Convention, it took the steps necessary to guarantee enjoyment and exercise of fundamental rights by Salvadoran society, during and after the armed conflict. As proof it points to “the peace accords signed during the dialogue for consolidation of