that in previous Admissibility Reports, the Inter-American Commission has seen the obstacles faced by the relatives of the disappeared victims in El Salvador to be able to establish the whereabouts of those victims, using the habeas corpus motion. 13 40. The IACHR deems that habeas corpus in principle constitutes an effective remedy for determining the whereabouts of a person even though substantial time has passed since his or her disappearance.14 In the instant case, Salvadoran legislation15 further establishes that the “executive judge” in charge of complying with the writ of habeas corpus has broad authority to require information from state authorities and private parties, and Article 74 of said law, on “responsibility of officials for the writ of habeas corpus,” stipulates that “no authority, court, or instance is exempt from this provision.” As established in the ruling on this habeas corpus motion, the efforts undertaken by the executive judge were limited to determining whether the military operation had been conducted on the specified day and hour.16 Moreover, the Commission has no information on measures taken to investigate the specific facts of the complaint. 41. The IACHR considers that as of the date of approval of this report domestic remedies have not operated with the necessary effectiveness to investigate a complaint of forced disappearance. More than 26 years have passed since the facts occurred, and to date the family of Emelinda Lorena Hernández has had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the then minor Emelinda Lorena Hernández, or of any results of the respective investigation, much less of any punishment of the responsible parties. 42. Furthermore, as regards the still-open investigation of the Attorney General’s Office adduced by the State, the Commission concludes that it does not have the necessary information to be able to issue an opinion on that judicial proceeding. 43. At the same time, the IACHR does not find that a complaint to the International Committee of the Red Cross or the Governmental Commission on Human Rights is one of the remedies that must be exhausted according to the Convention. Neither entity is a judicial organ. In any case, a complaint to the International Committee of the Red Cross or the Governmental Commission on Human Rights is not one of the remedies that must have been pursued and exhausted according to Article 46 of the American Convention. 44. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the exceptions to the requirement of Article 46(1) of the American Convention, as set forth in Articles 46(2)(b) and c), are applicable in the instant case. Finally, it should be noted that invocation of the exceptions to the rule for exhaustion of domestic remedies established in the American Convention is closely linked to a determination of possible violations of certain rights guaranteed in that treaty, such as effective judicial protection. However, Article 46(2) of the American Convention is an autonomous provision with respect to the other substantive provisions of the instrument. To determine whether the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies also constitute violations of the American Convention in the instant case there must be a separate analysis when considering the merits of the petition. This is because the analysis 13 See, Report Nº 31/01, Case 12.132, Admissibility, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, El Salvador, February 23, 2005, para. 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, and Report Nº 11/05, Admissibility, Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristián and Julia Inés Contreras, El Salvador, February 23, 2005, para. 32. 14 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C, No. 120, para. 79: “[H]abeas corpus presents 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, human or degrading punishment or treatment. The Court considers that habeas corpus can be an effective remedy for discovering the whereabouts of a person 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.” 15 Articles 38 to 40 of the Salvadoran Constitutional Procedures Law. 16 Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Habeas corpus proceeding No. 238-2002, of March 3, 2003. Page 2. 8