-23a specific sector and that he or she was handed over to the Red Cross at a specific time. Those who kept the logbooks were administrative personnel who worked within each unit; they could not record what happened during the operations because they were not taken to the combat zone. The Armed Forces considered that international humanitarian law should be applied; consequently, before they went out on operations, the soldiers received a briefing. The Truth Commission or the Commission ad-hoc had investigated some of his colleagues and ordered their removal owing to the 1980 to 1982 military operations, but they were not tried by a court. He was unaware of any military or administrative personnel appropriating children from the conflict zones, or of any cases of children being put up for adoption or sale by the Army, or of children being forcible recruited into the Army. 6. María Esperanza Franco Orellana de Miranda, witness in the domestic criminal proceedings In June 1982, her mother lived in Chalatenango. She knew María Victoria Cruz Franco. She had never heard about the refugee camp in Mesa Grande, Honduras. She made two statements before the Chalatenango Court in the proceedings concerning what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda. In the first statement she said that she saw when the girls were taken from a helicopter and handed over to the Red Cross. In the second statement, she said that she had seen nothing and had said that she saw the girls because María Victoria Cruz Franco asked her to do so. She does not remember the year in which María Victoria made this request. The correct statement is the one that she is making before the Inter-American Court; that is, “she saw nothing” and did not know Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz. The witness’s mother told her that people were saying that “the children who were lost, were Victoria’s children,” but her mother never told her that she knew Ernestina and Erlinda. She was interviewed by the prosecutor who arrived accompanied by a driver and two armed policemen. None of them threatened her. The prosecutor asked her to tell the truth. She did not tell the prosecutor the same facts that she had declared the first time. She was taken by car to the Chalatenango Court to make a statement. One of her sons accompanied her. She was frightened because she “did not know what was happening.” When she saw the armed policemen she “thought that the situation was very bad”; she thought they might do something to her. Subsequently, the prosecutor and “possibly” some police agents visited her four or five times. The prosecutor did not tell her his name, but showed her a “small card,” however, she is unable to read. The prosecutor and the State’s representatives in the proceedings before the court asked her to make a statement in Costa Rica. She told them about a problem she had with a piece of land; they accompanied her to look for the owner of the land, but since the latter was not at home, they agreed to return later. She also received a visit from the Ombudsman’s Office, who asked her not to accompany the prosecutor and the State’s representative because she did not know them. She specified the amount of money that the State had granted her for traveling expenses to give testimony in the public hearing before the Court, an amount which she considered “a small amount” of money; then, she corrected herself and said