52 Human Rights Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office, on March 5, 2010, the Public Prosecution Service opened “the investigation file to examine the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez” under number 238-UDV-OFM-2-10.224 The processing of file 225-UDVSV-00 (supra para. 142) and case 479-3-96 (supra para. 140) continued. 144. Thus, when new investigations were launched or reopened, the probative procedures ordered consisted in: sending another official request to the authorities of the Armed Forces and of the Ministry of Defense, who, in response, reiterated that they did not have the information requested;225 requesting information on the case from non-governmental organizations;226 arranging to obtain information from different authorities on the next of kin and possible witnesses, most of whom had already testified prior to the inactivity of the case files; however, most of them could not be located this time.227 224 Cf. File 238-UDV-OFM-2-10 for the crime of forced disappearance of persons before the Unit for Crimes against Life and Physical Integrity of San Francisco Gotera (evidence file, volume X, attachment 4 to the answer to the application, folio 6738). 225 Regarding investigation 585-UDVSV-08, on July 17, 2008, the Commanding Officer of the Fifth Infantry Brigade and the Minister of Defense were asked to provide a variety of information on the troops, rank and officials, in relation to the time and place of the forced disappearances. In response, on July 29, 2008, the Defense Minister stated that “no information [had] been found on the facts [referred to]” and, on August 7, 2008, the Commanding Officer of the Fifth Infantry Brigade indicated that the request should have been addressed to the Minister of Defense. Cf. Case file 585-UDVSV-2008, supra note 223, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 3 to the answer to the application, folios 6588 to 6592). In investigation 225-UDVSV-00, on August 27 and 28, 2008, the head of the San Vicente Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Head of the Inspectorate General of the Armed Forces, and the Minister of Defense, respectively, for information on the units and commanding officers who participated in military operations at that time and place of the disappearance of the Contreras siblings and of José Rubén Rivera; he also asked for the place or address where a summons could be sent to the individuals indicated in the said report. In this regard, in official letters dated August 30, 2008, and September 1, 2008, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Inspector General of the Armed Forces reported that “the competent authority to respond to petitions of this nature is the Minister of Defense.” On September 10, 2008, the Ministry of Defense replied that it did not have the requested information, “as has been indicated on previous occasions, given the nature and type of conflict that took place,” and therefore provided “public information” in that regard. Case File 225-UDVSV-00 supra note 215, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 5 to the answer to the application, folios 7442 to 7447). In case 479-3-96 before the Second Trial Court of San Vicente, on November 4, 2009, the judge asked the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defense, among others, to provide a detailed report on the Special Units that took part in the operations carried out in the are of the “La Joya” Hacienda in San Vicente department, specifically on May 17 and 18, 1983, as well as the names of the leaders and officers or commanding officers and the place or address where a summons could be sent to them. In an official letter sent on November 13, 2009, the Minister of Defense advised the judge that the requested information had not been found. For his part, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff replied similarly on the same date. Cf. Missing folios of case 479-3/96 before the Second Trial Court of San Vicente (evidence file, volume VI, attachment 30 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, folios 4257 to 4263). Regarding investigation 238UDV-OFM-2-10, on March 5, 2010, the Minister of Defense was asked to prove “the payroll of officers and soldiers, with their respective identification and domicile, of the Armed Force’s Atlacatl Immediate Reaction Infantry Battalion,” who were involved in the military operation carried out from December 8 to 16, 1981, in Cerro Pando de Meanguera canton. In response, on April 16, 2010, the Minister of Defense advised that, having reviewed his files, he had not found “any information on a Military Operation during that period and in that place, given the nature and type of conflict.” Cf. Case file 238-UDV-OFM-2-10, supra note 224 (evidence file, volume X, attachment 4 to the answer to the application, folios 6746 and 6776). 226 For example, the Legal Protection Office of the Archbishopric and the Search Association. Cf. File 238-UDVOFM-2-10, supra note 224 (evidence file, volume X, attachment 4 to the answer to the application, folios 6748, 6750 and 6794) and File 585-UDVSV-2008, supra note 223 (evidence file, volume X, attachment 3 to the answer to the application, folios 6686 and 6703 to 6704). 227 Cf. File 225-UDVSV-00, supra note 215, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 5 to the answer to the application, folios 7142 to 7153 and 7156, 7228 to 7229, 7237 to 7241, 7405 to 7411, 7423 to 7431), and Missing folios from File 479-3/96 before the Second Trial Court of San Vicente (evidence file, volume VI, attachment 30 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 4218 to 4221, 4265 to 4266, 4271 to 4272 and 4283 to 4285); File 585-UDVSV-2008, supra note 223, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 3 to the answer to the application, folios 6589 and 6593), and File 238-UDV-OFM-2-10, supra note 224, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 4 to the answer to the application, folios 6782 to 6787, 6790 to 6791 and 7034 to 7035).