would have to show proof that the children’s disappearance did in fact occur.18 In this regard, the Commission notes that this conduct on the part of the State had the effect of denying the petitioners access to the remedy, inasmuch as the State laid upon the shoulders of the alleged victims’ next of kin the investigative obligations that are the duty of the State itself.19 It is worth noting that in earlier reports on admissibility, the Inter-American Commission pointed out the kinds of impediments that the next of kin of disappeared victims in El Salvador encountered when attempting to use the remedy of habeas corpus to establish the disappeared’ whereabouts.20 45. The Inter-American Court has held that the remedy of habeas corpusperforms a vital role in ensuring that a person’s life and physical integrity are respected, in preventing his disappearance or the keeping of his whereabouts secret and in protecting him against torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment.21 The IACHR considers further that in principle habeas corpus is an effective remedy for locating the whereabouts of a person even when many years have passed since the disappearance.22 However, the remedy of habeas corpus has not functioned effectively in El Salvador in cases of forced disappearances, even after the conflict ended in 1992.23 46. The Commission finds no information –either from the parties or in the case file- about any measures taken to investigate the facts denounced. As of the date on which this report was adopted, the domestic remedies have not worked with the effectiveness necessary to investigate a complaint of forced disappearance. In fact, almost 26 years have passed since the facts occurred. The Commission therefore concludes that the State has offered no evidence to indicate that it has taken any measure to investigate the facts denounced and ascertain the whereabouts of the alleged victims. Quite the contrary, the State denies justice by arguing that the case cannot be solved because so much time has passed since the events transpired; yet that time has passed precisely because no remedy or means was available to the victims’ next of kin to report the facts. 47. A complaint filed with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or the Governmental Human Rights Commission is not one of the remedies that the Convention requires be exhausted. Those institutions are not judicial bodies. In either case, a complaint with the Red Cross or the Governmental Human Rights Commission is not one of the remedies that must be exhausted under Article 46 of the American Convention. 18 In rulings dated March 6, 2003 and May 26, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber wrote that “the petitioner does not provide any element to suggest that this is a case of forced disappearance; instead, the petitioner merely recounts events associated with what the petitioner alleges is a case of forced disappearance.” 19 See, I/A Court H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, paragraph 152, in which the Court rules that “[I]n cases of forced disappearance, the State’s defense cannot rely on the impossibility of the plaintiff to present evidence in the proceedings since, in such cases, it is the State that controls the means to clarify the facts that have occurred in its jurisdiction and, therefore, in practice, it is necessary to rely on the cooperation of the State itself in order to obtain the required evidence.” 20 See Report No. 31/01, Case 12,132, Admissibility, Ernestina y Erlinda Serrano Cruz, El Salvador, February 23, 2005, paragraph 23; Report No. 56/05, Admissibility, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, El Salvador, October 12, 2005, paragraphs 33 and 34; Report No. 53/05, Admissibility, José Rubén Rivera, El Salvador, October 12, 2005, paragraphs 30 and 31, Report No. 11/05, Admissibility, Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristián and Julia Inés Contreras, El Salvador, February 23, 2005, paragraph 32; Report No. 11/08, Admissibility, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, El Salvador, March 5, 2008, paragraph 39, and Report No. 10/08, Admissibility, Santos Ernesto Salinas, El Salvador, March 5, 2008, paragraph 27. 21 I/A Court H.R., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paragraph 35. 22 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paragraph 79: “… among essential judicial guarantees, judicial guarantees, habeas corpus represents the appropriate means of guaranteeing liberty, controlling respect for a person’s life and integrity, and preventing his disappearance or ignorance about his place of detention, and also to protect the individual from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The Court considers that habeas corpus can be an effective remedy for discovering the whereabouts of a persons or clarifying whether a situation that harms personal liberty has occurred, even though the person in favor of whom it is filed is no longer in the State’s custody, but has been handed over into the custody of an individual or even though considerable time has passed since a person disappeared.” 23 Report No. 11/08, Admissibility, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, El Salvador, March 5, 2008, paragraph 38, and Report No. 10/08, Admissibility, Santos Ernesto Salinas, El Salvador, March 5, 2008, paragraph. 26. 9