24 arrive and took hiding while they carried out the killings. The bodies were buried in the same places 121 where the massacre took place. 120. Between October 30, 1990 and August 21, 1992, statements were received from Juan Bautista Márquez, Rufina Amaya Amaya, Irma Ramos Márquez, Pedro Chicas Romero, Hilario Sánchez Gómez, María Teofila Pereira, Bernadino Guevara Chicas, Lucila Romero Martínez, Domingo Vigil Amaya, Rosa Ramírez Hernández, Eustaquio Martínez Vigil, Genaro Sánchez, Sotero Guevara Martínez, 122 Raquel Romero Claros Viuda de Claros, Anastacio Pereira Vigil and Lidia Chicas Mejía . 121. On November 9, 1990, the judge hearing the case ordered some investigative 123 measures . Although the prosecutor for the case had requested that the executive power be subpoenaed to provide information on the commanders and officers in charge of the military operations of December 1981 in the zone, the judge decided at that time: To dismiss the request because the record does not indicate that it was members of the national army who participated in the crime under investigation, as the green uniform is used both by members of the national army and by members of the FMLN, nor is there sufficient proof in the fact that the witnesses and the plaintiff say the soldiers told them they were from the Atlacatl Battalion, since such a statement could have been made by members of terrorist groups passing themselves 124 off as soldiers of the national army. 122. On May 8, 1991 the judge of the Second Court issued a decision to the effect that he had 125 received sufficient evidence and was suspending the taking of evidence for that reason . 123. On June 19, 1991, notification was sent to the President of the Republic and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces requesting the names of the commanders and officers in charge of an operation conducted on December 10, 1981 in Meanguera, Department of Morazán, and specifically in the places where various persons were killed, allegedly at the hands of members of the Armed Forces, those places being the villages of El Mozote, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, the canton of Guacamaya, 126 and the townships of La Joya and Cerro Pando. 124. On that same day notification was sent to the Director of the Legal Medicine Institute and the Head of the Executive Unit of the Crime Investigation Commission, requesting their collaboration in the exhumation and autopsy of various persons for an event that took place on December 10, 1981 in 127 those same locales. 121 Complaint filed by Pedro Chicas Romero before the Second Court on October 26, 1990 (attached to the initial petition of October 30, 1990). This complaint was also mentioned in the IDHUCA report, op. cit. 122 Court record. (Annex 2 to the petitioners’ communication of July 7, 2006). 123 Communication from the State received May 29, 1992. 124 Decision of the Second Court, November 9, 1990. Court record (Annex 2 to the petitioners’ communication of July 7, 2006). 125 Decision of the Second Court, May 8, 1991. Court records (Annex 2 to the petitioners’ communication of July 7, 2006). The Tutela Legal declared the reasons for the suspension unsatisfactory, as evidence could perfectly well be taken while other investigative measures were being pursued. In response, the judge said that the suspension was temporary and that as soon as the inspection and exhumations were completed other witnesses and victims could give statements. However, criminal proceedings were in fact halted for a year, as the taking of testimony was suspended and the inspections began only on May 27, 1992. See Tutela Legal, op. cit. 126 Communication of the State received May 29, 1992; unnumbered letter sent to the President of the Republic on June 19, 1991. Court record (Annex 2 to the petitioners’ submission of July 7, 2006); and decision of the judge of the Second Court of September 27, 1993 (attached to the communication from the State of October 14, 1993). 127 Communication of the State received May 29, 1992; unnumbered letter to the Director of the Legal Medicine Institute and the Executive Unit of the Crime Commission, June 19, 1991. Court record (Annex 2 to the petitioners’ submission of July 7, 2006); and decision of the judge of the Second Court of September 27, 1993 (attached to the communication from the State of October 14, 1993).