11. As for clarifying the facts, the petitioners maintain that the Asociación Pro Búsqueda accompanied Ms. María Adela Iraheta2, mother of Santos Ernesto Salinas, when she lodged a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, in the city of San Vicente, in August 2002, but that the complaint was not accepted by the staff in charge, who “argued that it must be presented at the central office” in the city of San Salvador; this was attempted, but yielded no positive outcome. The child's mother and the Asociación Pro- Búsqueda submitted a motion for habeas corpus to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 17, 2002.3 The child's mother first reported the facts to theAsociación Pro Búsqueda, which helped her to submit a motion for habeas corpus to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 17, 2002. In a ruling of March 3, 2003 (notified on March 11 of that year), the Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to establish the probability of the alleged forced disappearance, and that consequently the Court must go by what the authorities themselves reported. 4 The petitioners maintain that this judgment exhausted any chances of obtaining a judicial remedy through domestic jurisdiction. B. Position of the State 12. In its response, the State argued that El Salvador had no evidence that there was any systematic practice of forced disappearance of juveniles during the conflict. It objected to the complaint's admissibility on the grounds that the petitioners had not exhausted the remedies provided in domestic legislation. 13. The State maintained that during the time the event was alleged to have occurred, a noninternational armed conflict was underway in El Salvador, and that consequently the rules of international humanitarian law were applicable. The State said that, consistent with those rules, the Armed Forces established the "Standard operating procedure (PON) for detentions by members of the Armed Forces". That procedure provided that juveniles who fell into the hands of combatants were to be taken to a safe place, pursuant to Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (Part II, Article 4). The State maintains that this procedure was followed in accordance with humanitarian rules, citing as evidence the Report of the Special United Nations Representative for El Salvador, Pastor Ridruejo, which declared that "El Salvador has respected sectors of the civilian population who, presumably, were part of the so-called ‘masses’". 14. The State also noted that that same report from the United Nations Special Representative, submitted in 1984 to the UN General Assembly, devoted a special section to the issue of forced disappearance. It did not however refer specifically to the disappearance of children, from which it may be inferred that international observers found no evidence that this was a systematic or generalized practice. Nor did the United Nations Working Group on Enforced Disappearance have anything to say on the matter, despite having received many complaints of disappearance. Consistent with those arguments, the State held that "if juveniles were the target of such actions, this was not the responsibility of the State, for the State gave no mandate to its armed forces to abduct children". 15. The State also argued that the petitioners had not exhausted domestic remedies. It noted that at the time of the events the 1974 Criminal Code was in effect, which made it a crime to interfere with personal liberty. The boy's mother could have availed herself of this mechanism, by filing a complaint with the General Directorate of the National Guard or the General Directorate of the National Police as the law-enforcement bodies responsible for investigating crimes. In addition, the State declared that the new criminal legislation makes the forced Ms. María Adela Iraheta died on October 21, 2005, of diabetes. According to the petition for habeas corpus, the complainant attested to the existence of the child Santos Ernesto Salinas with a certified copy of his birth certificate. 4 Decision of the Supreme Court of El Salvador, March 3, 2003. 2 3 3