the Red Cross and the Governmental Human Rights Commission. Concerning the writ of habeas corpus, the State says it was filed on October 17, 2002, but could have been filed any time earlier; it adds that this remedy was rejected for lack of evidence supplied by the plaintiffs. 32. For their part, the petitioners maintain that the domestic remedies are ineffective, but nevertheless they have attempted by all possible means to have their case addressed, including a habeas corpus motion to determine the whereabouts of Emelinda Lorena Hernández. The petitioners emphasize that 26 years have passed since the disappearance of Emelinda Lorena Hernández, and authorities have done nothing to guarantee the effectiveness of the investigation, identify those responsible for the facts, punish them, and compensate the victims or their families. 33. On the matter of habeas corpus, they add that this motion was suspended on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to prove the forced disappearance; and that for this resolution, the Constitutional Chamber based its ruling on the official report required by the Executive Judge of the Ministry of National Defense, which stated that the facts did not occur, and the Executive Judge did not exercise due diligence to determine the whereabouts of Emelinda Lorena Hernández. In addition, the petitioners say that rejection of this writ foreclosed any possibility of justice for the family, because the Constitutional Court ordered the case shelved and did not instruct other state agencies to investigate the girl’s whereabouts. Similarly, the recommendations of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights to the Attorney General’s Office to investigate the case have been ignored. 34. Concerning the criminal investigations allegedly underway by the State, the petitioners maintain that they have no information concerning any open case in the Attorney General’s Office, as the State contends, and that it has not identified said proceeding nor any specific steps that have been taken in it, which reflects “an unwillingness to comply effectively with its duty to investigate, punish, and try the responsible parties.” According to the petitioners, the inactivity of the Attorney General’s Office shows that available domestic remedies exist only on paper. 35. For its part, the Commission notes that in this case members of the Salvadoran army were allegedly responsible for the forced disappearance of a girl during the domestic armed conflict in El Salvador. That period was marked by systematic violations of human rights and impunity, fostered in part by the ineffectiveness of the Salvadoran judicial system.4 In this regard, the Commission considers that the petitioners were denied access to remedies under domestic law during the time of the armed conflict because at that time El Salvador lacked an independent judiciary; denunciations of human rights violations were notoriously ineffective, especially given the seriousness of the violations in this case.5 At times, filing denunciations of facts could 4 In its annual reports published during the armed conflict, the IACHR issued statements on several occasions about the violence and lack of effective judicial protection of rights. For example: The right to justice has been profoundly affected by the state of emergency that reigns in El Salvador, as indica ted earlier. Here it is worth reiterating the Commission’s remarks from its last Annual Report: the American Convention does not authorize the suspension of judicial guarantees that are essential for protecting basic rights; particularly not for prolonged periods, as has been the case in El Salvador. In addition, there is a lack of judicial independence and authority; members of the judiciary have themselves been the target of criminal acts. The marked limitations on judicial guarantees, as stated previously, have left many proceedings unresolved, causing the population to lose confidence in the judicial system. IACHR, Annual Report 1983-1984, Chapter IV “Human Rights Situation in Several States: El Salvador,” para. 6. 5 In its annual report published at the end of the Salvadoran armed conflict, the IACHR recalled the situation experienced by that country during the preceding 12 years. It said: El Salvador does not now enjoy—nor has it in the recent past—the kind of efficient, impartial administration of justice that is the best safeguard against impunity and an effective deterrent against crime. Throughout the armed conflict, and once it was over, human rights organizations and experts of all leanings and origins concurred on this one point. IACHR, Annual Report 1992, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83 Doc. 14, March 12, 1993, Chapter IV, “Status of Human Rights in Several Countries: El Salvador,” para. 10. In the same vein, the Inter-American Commission had recommended to the State in 1984 “That the Government should urgently proceed to reform the judiciary, in order to guarantee the punishment of those responsible for human rights violations.” IACHR, Annual Report 1983-1984, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.63 Doc. 10, September 14, 1984, Chapter IV, “Situation of Human Rights in Several States: El Salvador,” para. 15.e. 6