4 account of the situation of internal armed conflict and the lack of judicial independence prevailing in the country at the time. 17. The petitioners contend that the remedy for prompt decision (Queja por Retardación de Justicia) – identified by the State as a resource that should have been exhausted prior to invoking this international venue – is an extraordinary resource, provided for in domestic law for civil matters and not suitable in the instant case given the criminal nature of the alleged facts. They also maintain that the matter of this petition has not been submitted to any other international settlement proceeding. 18. To summarize, the petitioners claim that on account of the forced disappearances of Patricia Emilie Cuellar Sandoval, Mauricio Cuellar Cuellar, and Julia Orbelina Pérez, and of the impunity that has surrounded them – allegedly arising from the absence of an efficient investigation and from the failure to resolve the judicial proceedings – the State of El Salvador is internationally responsible for alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. B. The State 19. For its part, the Salvadoran State maintains that the petition is inadmissible. 4 It claims that the remedies provided by domestic law have not been exhausted, and it argues the existence of unresolved legal proceedings and of judicial remedies that are still to be filed. 20. On the first point, El Salvador notes the existence of proceedings before the office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic and before the Fourth Investigating Court that are still pending resolution, and through which the State is making efforts to ensure justice, to clear up the alleged disappearances, and to determine the alleged victims’ whereabouts. In particular, regarding the first set of proceedings, El Salvador maintains that the failure to secure positive results does not mean there has been an unwarranted delay in dealing with it; it maintains that that is a consequence of the length of time that passed between the date of the incidents (July 1982) and the date on which the complaint was presented (March 2003), and of the negative impact that this length of time has had on the possibility of gathering evidence. 21. In addition, El Salvador contends that the delay in resolving the habeas corpus filing lodged with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice could have been due to a lack of evidence. The State adds that since resolutions of this kind do not give rise to res judicata, either the petitioners or any other person could have filed for a new habeas corpus remedy, if they had had the necessary evidence. 22. Regarding the judicial remedies that are still to be filed, El Salvador holds that given the dissatisfaction with the length of time that has gone by since the opening of criminal proceedings No. 392-82, the petitioners should have filed a remedy for prompt decision, because: (i) it is a remedy provided for in the law of criminal procedure in force at the time the proceedings were initiated and substantiated, 5 and (ii) even were it not expressly provided for in that law, the 4 In its first reply, the Salvadoran State said that in light of the stage in the proceedings at which the petition was, it would solely address matters relating to its admissibility, emphasizing that that did no mean that it accepted or acknowledged the truthfulness of the facts described by the petitioners. 5 The State notes that the remedy in question was regulated in Title IV, “Extraordinary Resources,” of the Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time.