this regard they invoke application of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2.b of the Convention. B. The State 20. For its part, the State says there was no systematic practice in the Salvadoran armed forces for disappearances or killing of minors; and although the numerous regulations on the subject do not guarantee total application in practice, even minimal application afforded a degree of protection of human rights for all Salvadorans. It says that if children were victims of forced disappearances, that were not the State’s responsibility because it did not give a mandate to its armed forces to conduct forced disappearances of children. To the contrary, says the State, the armed forces tried to take the children they found to safe locations. In addition, El Salvador says that if children were taken and their identities were changed or they were given for adoption, this was not a government policy; if individuals acting in their personal capacity engaged in this criminal behavior, there were and are penal procedures for determining their responsibility 21. According to the Salvadoran State the petitioner filed a habeas corpus motion in 2002, but could have done so earlier at any time. On this point, State says the motion was suspended for lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the child had in fact disappeared. It indicates that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its resolution of March 3, 2003, clarified that the resolution was not res judicata, and that it “did not prevent the petitioner or any other interested party from using the elements discussed in this resolution to file a new habeas corpus petition so that this Court can grant the party protection for the right to personal liberty.” 22. Concerning the declaration that the writ of habeas corpus was out of order, the State says that this does not establish res judicata status concerning the ordinary instance, and that if the writ had been filed in a timely manner it would have been possible to gather more information; since habeas corpus is a remedy for protection, it cannot produce the desired result when presented so many years after the alleged violation. 23. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that the petitioner has failed to do so, because El Salvador’s legal system offers many possibilities for exhausting them, and the petitioners could file action in any of the courts all around the country, with jurisdiction in each of the departments, municipalities, towns, villages, and cantons. However, according to the State, the petitioners did not exhaust these avenues. 24. Moreover, notes the State, the proceeding is currently open in the Attorney General’s Office, and little more than a year has passed since the Court’s resolution of March 3, 2003, which is little time for the necessary investigations taking into account the time elapsed since the child’s disappearance; it notes that said investigation becomes more difficult over time because it is harder to gather evidence, locate and cite the witnesses, and conduct the inquiries, so the case becomes increasingly more complex through no fault of the authorities involved. 25. The Salvadoran State maintains that the law applicable to this case is international humanitarian law, specifically Article 3 in all four Geneva Conventions, supplemented by Protocol II, so the Commission would not be competent to consider the instant case. Furthermore, the State says that when El Salvador accepted the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court, it did so with a reservation in accordance with Article 62.2 of the Convention, and it recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court only with regard to facts or acts that began after the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., June 6, 1995, and the State argues that if the Commission follows the jurisprudence of the Court, the instant case will remain in domestic jurisdiction. 26. In summary, the State holds that the petitioners had various options for reporting or denouncing to the State the alleged facts that occurred, and that the State offered ordinary 4