disappearance of persons presented during that time did not result in due clarification of the facts or the investigation and punishment of those responsible.8 The State itself admits that it was only in March 2002, in the proceedings concerning the disappearance of the child Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, that the Supreme Court of Justice changed its jurisprudence, which denied protection in cases of forced disappearance, to admit violations of the right to physical liberty, even without proof of detention. 9 This case, therefore, represented the possibility of an effective habeas corpus remedy in cases involving disappeared persons in El Salvador. 26. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that the remedy ofhabeas corpus is an essential means of monitoring respect for the lives and well-being of persons, of preventing their disappearance or a lack of information as to their whereabouts, and of protecting them against torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. 10The Commission notes that the remedy of habeas corpus has been ineffective in El Salvador in cases of forced disappearance, even after the conflict ended in 1992. The Commission has been informed by both parties that, on March 20, 2002, in a judgment in the proceedings concerning Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, the Supreme Court of Justice changed its jurisprudence, establishing that petitions for habeas corpus could be lodged to initiate investigations of forced disappearances. This case, therefore, represented the first possibility of an effective habeas corpus remedy in cases involving disappeared persons in El Salvador. 11 27. After having their access to justice blocked for more than 20 years, the petitioners filed a motion for habeas corpus on November 15, 2002, receiving a negative response from the courts, which was notified to them on March 11, 2003. The decision of the Supreme Court rejecting that motion demanded that the relatives provide proof to demonstrate that a forced disappearance had in fact occurred. The Commission observes that this State approach prevents the petitioners from gaining access to this remedy, because the State effectively passes on the burden of investigation to the alleged victims’ relatives. 12The Commission finds that, at this stage in its processing of the case, the State has presented no evidence of concrete efforts to investigate the facts of the case and to locate the whereabouts of the alleged victim.13 It should be emphasized that in previous Admissibility Reports, the InterAmerican Commission has seen the obstacles faced by the relatives of the disappeared victims in El Salvador to be able to establish the whereabouts of those victims, using the habeas 46(2)(c) of the Convention, declaring that "as of the date this report was adopted, domestic remedies had not operated with the effectiveness required to investigate a complaint of forced disappearance .... In fact, nearly eight years have passed since the first complaint was lodged with the authorities in El Salvador, with no definitive finding of how the events transpired”. 8 The Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of El Salvador (Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de El Salvador—PDDH) spoke out about the issue of forced disappearances, and in its considerations on access to justice during the postwar period it indicated that "since the end of the war, the situation has not changed substantially in the face of victims' complaints. The best proof that Salvadoran justice has not functioned for the victims is that no one is behind bars for such atrocious crimes, and no victims, nor their remains, have been found." Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de El Salvador, Informe Especial de la Señora Procuradora sobre la práctica de Desapariciones Forzadas de personas en el contexto del conflicto armado interno ocurrido en El Salvador entre 1980 y 1992, 8 March 2005. 9 See Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, 20 March 2002, Expediente 379-2000. 10 I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987, “Habeas corpus in Emergency Situations,” para. 35. 11 Decision of the Supreme Corte of Justice of El Salvador, March 20, 2002, in the habeas corpusproceeding No. 3792000, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez. 12 See I/A Court H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of 25 November 2000. Series C. No. 70, Para. 152, in which the Court held that "in cases of forced disappearance, the State's defense cannot rely on the impossibility of the plaintiff to present evidence in the proceedings since, in such cases, it is the State that controls the means to clarify the facts that have occurred in its jurisdiction and, therefore, in practice, it is necessary to rely on the cooperation of the State itself in order to obtain the required evidence." 13 The State was also negligent in its pursuit of measures to locate persons reported as missing. Thus, in 2003, the Public Prosecutor for Human Rights recalled for the Legislative Assembly the importance of complying in good faith with "the recommendations to the Salvadoran State issued by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Rights of the Child, to institute a national commission with sufficient resources and powers to find missing children, and to create a reparations fund for the juveniles located.” See Informe Especial de la Señora Procuradora sobre la práctica de Desapariciones Forzadas de personas en el contexto del conflicto armado interno ocurrido en El Salvador entre 1980 y 1992, 8 March 2005 page 49. 6