53 context of the habeas corpus proceedings, it is clear that the executing judge in each case merely sent an official letter to the Minister of Defense and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces or inspected certain files; they accepted the answers received from the authorities regarding the non-existence of records or information relating to operations or the possible restriction of the liberty of the then children, without requesting an explanation about the mechanisms used by the authorities to reach that conclusion (supra paras. 58, 67, 73, 85 and 86). 165. In rulings dated March 3272 and 6273, and May 26,274 2003, the Constitutional Chamber dismissed all the aforementioned habeas corpus proceedings citing the same arguments. In its considerations, the Constitutional Chamber differentiated these cases from other precedents in which it acknowledged the constitutional violation of the right to physical liberty, based on the following arguments: a) “there were elements that indicated the probability of a violation of the right to physical liberty, elements that would suggest, at that time, that it was indeed a case of forced disappearance of persons, such as the birth certificate of the disappeared minors, a document that was used to prove their existence; as well as the report […] stating that steps had been taken to determine the whereabouts of the beneficiaries, and a record of these proceedings that included witness statements confirming the existence of the operation and the disappearance of the minors”; b) “given the existence of a report provided by the respondent authority, stating that that there was no record of any operation in the place and on the dates indicated by the claimant, this Court considered it necessary to weigh up the beneficiaries’ right to physical liberty and the denial of the fact by the respondent authorities–by virtue of not having established that those minors had died - and therefore to grant the protection of the right to physical liberty of the beneficiaries”; c) unlike the aforementioned precedent, “the petitioner does not provide any evidence to suggest that we are indeed before a case of forced disappearance of persons, given that he merely recounted the facts concerning the supposed forced disappearance, attaching only the birth certificate of the then minor to the complaint; this confirms the birth of the beneficiary and his record before the competent authority, but does not provide any indication whatsoever of the existence of the alleged constitutional violation”; d) “given that this Court only has the word of the petitioner, on the one hand, on which to base its ruling, and on the other hand, the report provided by the respondent authority, which denies that the aforementioned facts took place, it is appropriate to dismiss this habeas corpus action, given the lack […] of minimum indicia that would establish a degree of probability regarding the restriction of the beneficiary’s right to physical liberty; therefore, since the elements or ‘indicia’ establishing that they were deprived of liberty were not proven -specifically in the case of the forced disappearancesthe Chamber therefore lacks a subject on which to rule”; and e) the foregoing “does not imply returning to case law criteria that have already been superseded, which demanded proof of ‘detention’ and, in addition, considered the ‘forced disappearance of persons’ as a merely criminal act.” 166. Unlike other precedents, in which the judge examined the investigations by the Ombudsman’s Office and the criminal investigation conducted up until that time in each case,275 in the case of José Adrián Rochac Hernández no information was requested from the prosecutor who received the complaint (supra para. 144), a fact that was confirmed in the habeas corpus application. In the other Cf. Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding No. 216-2002 on March 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 11 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2308 to 2310); Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding No. 217-2002 on March 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 15 to the submission of the case, folios 1904 to 1906), and Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding No. 238-2002 on March 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 20 to the submission of the case, folios 2000 to 2002). 272 Cf. Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding number 18-2003 on March 6, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 32 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2447 to 2449). 273 Cf. Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding No. 25-2003 on May 26, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 28 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2387 to 2389). 274 275 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 160.