24. The timeliness of the investigation suffered, the State argues, not simply because the massacre was reported nine years after it happened. Access to the area was difficult, and the Ministry of Defense presumed the area to be mined. Furthermore, the investigation was hampered by a lack of forensic experts in anthropology and a lack of resources in the judiciary, because during the conflict most of the government budget was earmarked for defending the country and rebuilding the infrastructure attacked by the guerrillas. 25. The State pointed out that many efforts were made by the judiciary to investigate the alleged responsibility of government agents. The judge sent to the Office of the President of the Republic four requests for the records of military operations in the areas neighboring the massacre. However, since more than ten years had gone by, no records could be found. Thus, the State contended, despite government efforts "it has unfortunately not been possible to identify from the investigations the persons who took part in the massacre." And even though there is new evidence from exhumations conducted in 2000 and 2001, such evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive when it comes to the identity of the perpetrators of the massacre. 26. Concerning the lapsing of the criminal action and the application of the General Amnesty Law for Consolidation of Peace, the State indicated that this law was enacted for the good of Salvadoran society as a whole, as an essential part of the groundwork for the long-sought peace. The reasons for the law are set out in the Legislative Decree that enacted it, namely, to "promote and achieve national reconciliation." This made it necessary to grant a broad, absolute and unconditional amnesty as provided for in Article 1 of the law. 27. With that overriding concern in mind, the judge hearing the case applied the law, as it was consistent with the the lack of identification in the legal proceedings of the perpetrators of the massacre. The State stressed that the parties had available to them, at all times, the proper judicial remedies if they were dissatisfied with the decisions taken. According to the State, they could have disputed even the final dismissal of the case that had been based on the General Amnesty Law. The petitioners, however, did not exercise this right to appeal that final dismissal of September 27, 1993. 28. After that ruling, on September 26, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law. According to the Supreme Court, the law is not unconstitutional per se and may be applied to certain persons; it is up to the judge in each case to decide whether to apply it. That ruling, consequently, opened up for the petitioners the possibility of appealing the dismissal in their specific case, something that did not happen. 29. Based on these considerations, the State concludes that the petitioners appealed to the Commission "as another venue in which to have their claims heard and upheld," even though they "had not, within the criminal proceedings, availed themselves of the remedies then provided by Salvadoran law to appeal judicial rulings." Thus, the petitioners did not appeal the final dismissal by the judge and consequently could not file a constitutional challenge. Likewise, in the view of the State, if the petitioners believed that their rights under the Constitution had been violated, they could have used the established constitutional remedies, but failed to do so. The State therefore wants the petition ruled inadmissible on the grounds that internal remedies were not adequately employed. IV. ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 30. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that El Salvador is a party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. The petitioners are empowered under Article 44 of the Convention to file petitions with the IACHR. The petition names as alleged victims in this case persons whose rights under the Convention El Salvador has undertaken to respect and guarantee. The Commission notes that the remains 5