43 131. With respect to the various decisions issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceedings, in the sense of not granting constitutional protection owing to a lack of evidence to confirm the existence of the alleged constitutional violations, the representatives recalled that it is the duty of a judge appointed specifically for a given case to collect the evidence, but that in all the proceedings reported, the judge’s actions were limited to requesting reports from the Ministry of National Defense and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, with both these officials responding that no records existed related to the detention of children during the respective operations. 132. As to the situation of impunity, the representatives expressed concern that none of the prosecution proceedings have resulted in criminal action against the perpetrators and masterminds responsible for the forced disappearances, which would indicate that no substantial progress has been made in the investigations. They explained that most of the cases investigated by the public prosecution service were opened in 2009 - in other words, almost 29 years after the events occurredand have remained under investigation for the past 4 years. Furthermore, the auxiliary agents have so far been unable to identify the perpetrators or the possible masterminds, who would be highranking officials who served in the Armed Forces during those years and are publicly known to have participated in the military operations in question, mainly through newspaper reports on those dates. 133. The representatives noted that, since the year 2000, there has been a certain legal ambiguity regarding the application of the constitutionality ruling issued in files 24-97 and 21-98, in which the General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of Peace was declared constitutional. However, it was left to the discretion of the judges to decide whether or not to apply it in each specific case under their consideration, and where the parties claim the application of diffuse control of constitutionality that is the right of judges, but not of prosecutors, who must comply with it because it remains the law of the country. Thus, the representatives indicated that its non-applicability has not been declared in the instant case, because in no case has it been possible to attribute individual criminal responsibility. The representatives argued that “the ambiguous effect of the Amnesty Law can be maliciously used to avoid activating criminal proceedings in the pre judicial stages, in other words, in the administrative stages” and indicated that “the Attorney General’s auxiliary agents who have been in charge of the complaints filed, have not commented on or addressed the fact that they have not issued a summons to any person after so many years of investigation, as they have done in other cases.” They admitted that it is difficult to ensure that the State, through the Public Prosecution Service, implements the measure ordered in the Case of the Massacres of El Mozote. 134. The representatives pointed out that to date, the truth of what occurred is not known and that the case remains in total impunity, given the failure by the Attorney General’s Office to investigate. They argued that the right to know the truth in cases involving serious human rights violations, particularly crimes against humanity as in the instant case, acquires a special significance. The effects of not knowing the truth in cases of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity result in “multiple offenses, because this affects people’s emotional integrity on an individual and collective basis, as well as the healthy social and political development of the organized community, seriously harming its dignity as a group and its social fabric.” Ignorance of the truth in these cases produces generalized impunity that makes it impossible to rebuild the social fabric and results in a loss of confidence in the institutions responsible for delivering justice. Therefore, the representatives considered that the right to the truth in this case is an individual right to the due process of investigation, a collective right of access to public information and, furthermore, a right consistent with the political freedoms inherent to democratic systems. In the instant case, the representatives argued that the State violated the right to learn the truth about the fate or whereabouts of the children given that it has not established the mechanisms necessary to elucidate the truth. Finally, they considered that only knowledge of the truth, through legally established means, is capable of healing individuals, families and Salvadoran society as a whole; consequently, the State and its competent