grounds that the report that the presiding judge ordered from the authorities stated that the events in question never occurred. The petitioners add that the presiding judge did not act with the diligence necessary to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared children. The petitioners assert that the dismissal of these petitions and the failure to order other state agencies to investigate the whereabouts of Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio and Ricardo Ayala Abarca precluded any possibility of justice for the victims named in the two cases. 21. As for the investigation, the petitioners contend that the various state offices that dealt with the case in El Salvador were ineffective and inadequate. Once the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda was established, the boys’ mothers turned to it for assistance. In 1996, Pro-Búsqueda filed various cases with the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights involving children disappeared as a consequence of the armed conflict. One of these cases was that of the boys Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio and Ricardo Ayala Abarca. The petitioners state that although recommended by the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights in one of its reports,8 neither the Attorney General’s Office nor any other competent state body launched an investigation to ascertain the whereabouts of the disappeared boys. 22. As for the State’s argument that the Inter-American Commission does not have competence to take up the present case because the State accepted the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights only with respect to juridical facts and acts that commenced after June 6, 1995, the petitioners contend that the argument is without merit inasmuch as El Salvador ratified the American Convention on June 23, 1978, and thus has been bound by the provisions of that treaty since then and is therefore answerable for the violations of the Convention committed to the detriment of Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio and Ricardo Ayala Abarca. 23. Summarizing, the petitioners contend that until the Truth Commission was created, no domestic remedy was available in El Salvador that the petitioners could have used to report disappeared children. The petitioners contend that since then, the domestic remedies available in El Salvador have been ineffective for purposes of investigating the facts, establishing the whereabouts of Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio and Ricardo Ayala Abarca, punishing those responsible and redressing the consequences of the violations alleged. They further argue that the jurisprudence constante of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been that a State that asserts the failure to exhaust domestic remedies must indicate which remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective.9 The petitioners therefore request that the exception, established in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention, to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies be applied. B. The State 24. The Salvadoran State contends that the applicable international law during an armed conflict is International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3, common to all the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. It adds that it has ratified the four Geneva Conventions and their two additional Protocols. It therefore concludes that the Inter-American Commission does not have competence to take up possible violations of those international instruments. The State notes further that when accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, El Salvador entered a reservation pursuant to Article 62(2) of the Convention, to the effect that that it recognizes this jurisdiction solely and exclusively in cases involving subsequent juridical facts and acts, or juridical facts and acts which commenced after the declaration of recognition was deposited on June 6, 1995. The State therefore reasons that if 8 Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights (Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos – PPDH), “Informe de la Señora Procuradora para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos sobre las desapariciones forzadas de las niñas Ernestina y Erlinda Serrano Cruz, su impunidad actual y el patrón de la violencia en que ocurrieron tales desapariciones” [The Office of the Prosecutor’s report on the forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, the current impunity and the context of violence in which this disappearance occurred], issued on September 2, 2004, p. 164. 9 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paragraph 88; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, paragraph 87, and Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, paragraph 90. 4