disappearance of persons a crime, and yet the petitioners had not availed themselves of this route. 16. The State notes that the petitioners decided to file a motion for habeas corpus only in 2002, i.e. 20 years after the events. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a ruling of March 3, 2003, dismissed that appeal because the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence about the allegedly missing child. That court decision did not terminate the domestic judicial discussion, the State held, because if the parties produce evidence that a crime may have been committed, a new habeas corpus process can be requested. The State also argued that if such a motion had been filed earlier, more information could have been gathered. Subsequent to that decision, the public prosecutor's office opened an investigation, but that there has been too little time to complete the investigation, in particular because, so many years after the event, evidence is difficult to find. 17. In addition, the State contends that the petitioners had a series of alternative remedies available to them, such as the Government Commission on Human Rights. They could also have appealed to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which installed a permanent office in El Salvador during the conflict. The State notes that the petitioners did not report the alleged incidents to any of these organizations. Because of this, the State requests the IACHR to declare the complaint inadmissible, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30(3) of the Commission's rules of procedure. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione personae, materiae of the Inter-American Commission ratione temporis andratione 18. Under the terms of Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are entitled to address a petition to the Commission. The petition names Santos Ernesto Salinas as the alleged victim, a person in relation to whom the Salvadoran State was bound to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Regarding the State, the Commission notes that El Salvador is a State Party to the American Convention, having duly deposited its instrument of ratification on June 23, 1978. As a consequence, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to hear the complaint. 19. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petitioners claim violations of rights protected by the American Convention. The State argues that International Humanitarian Law was the applicable law during the domestic armed conflict. Regarding this, the Commission contends that it is not precluded from ruling on the reported incidents merely because some of them might have occurred in the context of an armed conflict. Article 27 of the Convention absolves the State from certain obligations in the context of armed conflicts but in no way does it suspend the force of the Convention in its entirety nor does it abridge the present Commission’s powers. It must be noted that the rights of the Child are among those rights with respect to which the international obligations of States cannot be suspended. Despite the foregoing, in the merits stage of the case the IACHR will have to examine the State’s obligations stemming from the Convention, in the light of the provisions of International Humanitarian Law, which will serve as lex specialis, pursuant to Article 29 of the Convention, in interpreting the case. 20. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition, because it alleges violations of rights within the territory of a State party to the American Convention. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the complaint, because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State at the time of the alleged events. B. Requirements for admissibility 4