11. The case was reopened on March 14, 1996 at the instructions of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, after a habeas corpus appeal was lodged for the sisters. The Tribunal ordered the Court of First Instance of Chalatenango to continue to investigate the reported events. The case was quashed a second time on March 16, 1998 in folio Nº 126, for the following reason: There being no further steps to take in these criminal proceedings, the case is again shelved… 3 12. On June 24, 1999, 15 months after the case was shelved, it was reopened a second time. According to the petitioners, this was because the IACHR had notified the Salvadoran State of the pertinent parts of the complaint. The only step taken in nine months by the prosecutor in charge of the case was to ask the main office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Guatemala to report to whom the minors were given. In that regard, the petitioners indicate that they presented concrete proposals to redirect the investigation, which were transmitted to the prosecutor heading up the investigation. 13. In short, the petitioners maintain that domestic remedies available in El Salvador have been ineffective in investigating the events, determining the whereabouts of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, and providing reparations for the consequences of the alleged violations. They argue that over seven years have passed since the case was reported and that, in that time, the State’s attitude has been exceedingly negligent and indifferent, even though these are public criminal proceedings. The petitioners therefore feel that the investigation was predestined to fail. B. The State 14. The Salvadoran State is reproducing the information provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic and maintains that those documents prove that the investigation is ongoing and that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, in conformity with generally-accepted principles of international law. The State adds that case Nº 112/93 is being heard in the Court of First Instance of Chalatenango against members of the Atlacatl Battalion, for the alleged kidnapping of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz. Finally, it states that the case presented to the Inter-American Commission is not closed and that the investigation must continue, since the whereabouts of other minors has been determined in similar cases. 15. The Salvadoran State concludes the following: a. It learned of the kidnapping of the minors when their mother reported it on April 30, 1993. b. That according to witnesses and to the mother’s statement, if the army did take the minors, they were immediately turned over to the Red Cross for protection. c. There are still steps to be taken in the judicial process, such as summoning witnesses and the President of the Damas Voluntarias de la Cruz Roja (Red Cross Lady Volunteers) and inspecting the organization’s records. 16. The State maintains that in similar cases, the whereabouts of minors has been determined, with the valuable assistance of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, whose contact in the Prosecutor’s Office is Ms. Margarita Estrada Vásquez. 17. Finally, the Salvadoran State maintains that the investigation is ongoing and domestic remedies have not been exhausted, in keeping with generally-accepted principles of international law. It therefore requests that the IACHR find the case inadmissible. IV 3 ANALYSIS Idem. 3