14 i. Brought by Alejandrina Cruz, but in the name of Saúl Godínez Gómez, against the DNI on Augusts 17, 1982. Denied on November 10, 1982. ii. Also brought by Alejandrina Cruz, against the DNI of Choluteca on August 30, 1982. Dismissed on September 6, 1982, according to the report of the Commission. iii. Brought by various relatives of disappeared persons on behalf of Saúl Godínez and others on July 4, 1983. Denied on September 11, 1984. b. Criminal Complaint Brought by his wife, Enmidida Escoto de Godínez, in the First Court of Choluteca on October 9, 1982. The record does not show any disposition of this complaint. 78. Although the Government did not dispute that the above remedies had been attempted, it maintained that the domestic legal remedies had not been exhausted. It emphasized that the petition was submitted to the Commission on the same day that the criminal complaint was brought in the First Court of Choluteca. The Commission, thus, should not have admitted the petition, since the petitioner must first attempt all possibilities --both ordinary and extraordinary-offered by the domestic judicial system for a case to be admissible. The Government stated that the first writ of habeas corpus was denied because it was brought on behalf of Saúl Godínez Gómez and not Saúl Godínez Cruz and that there was no indication of the person responsible in the criminal complaint. To prove this, the Government submitted a certification of the Supreme Court which contains that information. The Government states that the complaint was abandoned by the petitioner because she did not present the writs of complaint and appeal. It, however, indicated that the Supreme Court requested the file of the case ad effectum videndi and ordered the lower court to continue the investigations for which reason the proceedings are still open. As to the writs of habeas corpus, the Government added that they could not be successful if the detaining authority and the place where Saúl Godínez allegedly was being held were unknown. 79. The Commission maintained that the writ of habeas corpus brought on August 17, 1982 and denied on November 10, 1982 was filed on behalf of Saúl Godínez Cruz and not on behalf of Saúl Godínez Gómez and presented sworn testimony to show that nothing had been done with respect to the criminal complaint brought by Mrs. Godínez and that she had not even been called to ratify it. This complaint does not appear in the entry book of the Choluteca court but does appear in its files. 80. The Commission also contended that Article 46 (2) of the Convention provides for exceptions to the rule on the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies which are applicable in the instant case because the domestic legislation did not provide effective remedies to protect the rights of Saúl Godínez and because, according to sworn testimony, after several years nothing had been done with respect to the criminal complaint filed by Enmidida Escoto de Godínez. 81. The record (infra Chapter V) contains testimony of members of the Legislative Assembly of Honduras, Honduran lawyers, persons who were at one time disappeared, and relatives of disappeared persons, which purports to show that in the period in which the events took place, the legal remedies in Honduras were ineffective in obtaining the liberty of victims of a practice of enforced or involuntary disappearances (hereinafter "disappearance" or "disappearances"), ordered or tolerated by the Government. The record also contains dozens of newspaper clippings which allude to the same practice. According to that evidence, from 1981 to 1984 more than one hundred persons were illegally detained, may of whom never reappeared, and, in general, the legal remedies which the Government claimed were available to the victims were ineffective.