endanger the complainant. Also, the facts occurred when domestic legal remedies were inoperative, especially habeas corpus.6 36. After this period, habeas corpus motions continued to be ineffective for the investigation of forced disappearances, because judicial authorities required complainants to prove the detention.7 The Commission finds that cases of forced disappearance of persons presented during this period did not elicit due clarification of the facts or the investigation and punishment of the responsible parties.8 The State itself recognizes that it was not until March 2002 that the Supreme Court amended its criteria—which previously denied protection in cases of forced disappearance—through jurisprudence to accept the violation of the right to personal liberty even lacking proof of detention, and that the remedy could be used to start investigations of forced disappearances.9 This case therefore was the first opportunity for effective use of the habeas corpus remedy in cases of disappeared persons in El Salvador. 37. For this reason on November 15, 2002, the mother of the child Emelinda filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, which that chamber said was suspended because “…this Chamber could base its ruling only on what the petitioner said—and as already established, she did not provide any type of information on the alleged breach of the Constitution—and on the report by the Executive Judge, which denied that the abovementioned facts occurred, hence it is necessary to stay the instant habeas corpus proceeding for lack of elements that would permit an analysis of the constitutionality of the alleged restriction of liberty of the individual involved.”10 38. The Inter-American Court has established that habeas corpus performs 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.11 On this matter, the IACHR notes that the habeas corpus remedy has not been effective in El Salvador in cases of forced disappearance, even since the conflict ended in 1992. 39. The ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of March 3, 2003, which rejected this remedy, required the family to provide evidence to determine the occurrence of the forced disappearance. The Commission observes that this State conduct blocks the petitioners’ access to this remedy, because the State transfers the obligation to investigate— which in principle is its own—to the relatives of the alleged victims.12 It should be emphasized 6 Referring to the situation experienced in El Salvador during the domestic armed conflict, the Commission found that “The remedy of “amparo” or of habeas corpus were [sic] rendered null since the state of emergency indefinitely suspends such remedies.” IACHR, Annual Report 1983-1984, Chapter IV, para.4. 7 See IACHR, Case of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, Report Nº 31/01, para. 24, in which the Commission decided the case was admissible, and applied the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies specified in Article 46.2.c of the Convention because “As of the date this report was adopted, domestic remedies had not operated with the effectiveness required to investigate a complaint of forced disappearance…and nearly eight years have passed since the first complaint was lodged with the authorities in El Salvador, with no definitive finding of how the events transpired.” 8 The Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights has issued a report on forced disappearances, and in its c omments on access to justice during the postwar period it stated: After the war, the situation has not changed substantially as regards the victim’s complaints. The clearest evidence that Salvadoran justice has not worked for the victims is that no party responsible for these atrocities is behind bars and no disappeared detainee—or their remains—have been found. Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights in El Salvador, Special Report of the Prosecutor on the practice of forced disappearance of persons in the context of the armed internal conflict that occurred in El Salvador from 1980 to 1992, report of March 8, 2005. 9 See Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, March 20, 2002, in habeas corpus proceeding No. 379-2000, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez. 10 Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Habeas corpus proceeding No. 238-2002, of March 3, 2003. Page 2. 11 I/A Court H.R., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987, Series A, No. 8, para. 35. 12 See I/A Court H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70, para. 152, in which the Court established 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.” 7