area of El Mozote,” rumors that were denied by both the inhabitants of the place and the national and foreign press that visited the area.413 260. In addition, the Report of the Truth Commission described how the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador at the time had indicated, during a visit made by the members of the Truth Commission on June 16, 1992, “that the exhumation that the trial judge had ordered would show that in El Mozote ‘only dead members of the guerrilla are buried,’”414 and concluded that the said justice “ha[d] interfered unduly and negatively with biased political criteria in the judicial proceedings underway in the case.”415 261. In this regard, the experts Mercedes Doretti, Luis Fondebrider and Silvana Turner from the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team indicated that the main obstacles to the forensic work were encountered during 1991 and 1992, a period during which deliberate obstructions to their appointment could be observed, at a time when El Salvador lacked experts in the area of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Subsequently, after waiting the country for three months, and at the request of local communities and Tutela Legal among others, two members of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team were appointed by the acting judge, but without a date to begin the exhumations. Finally, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team left the country, awaiting a decision in the case.416 In this regard, expert witness Tal Linda Ileen Simmons stated that the fact that the first exhumations were started 11 years after the events, owing to obstruction by the Government of El Salvador, had direct repercussions on the condition of the human remains and on the related evidence found by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team in these cases, and on the possibility of determining the identity of the remains that were exhumed.417 262. Consequently, this Court considers that the State delayed and obstructed the start of the exhumation work, which relates to both the collection of evidence and to the possibility of returning the remains to the next of kin so that they can close their mourning process. The Court reiterates that the passage of time has a directly proportionate relationship to the constraint – and, in some cases, the impossibility – of obtaining evidence and/or testimony, making it difficult to carry out probative procedures in order to clarify the events that are being investigated,418 to identify the possible authors and participants, and to determine eventual criminal responsibilities. 263. Third, the Court notes that the final dismissal of the case “in favor of any person who had belonged to the Atlacatl Battalion at the time of the events” took place without any person having been identified or formally indicted in the proceedings, and in application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, thwarting any hope of the victims that a determination would be made of the facts and, as appropriate, the corresponding criminal responsibilities, within a reasonable time. 264. When the final dismissal of the case was decided on September 1, 1993, the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado initiated new procedures for the exhumation of the victims before the Court handling the case, which authorized exhumations in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, 413 Cf. Press communiqué issued by the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado on April 8, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 11 to the submission of the case, folios 1545 to 1549). 414 Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 19921993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folio 1201). 415 Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 19921993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folio 1202). 416 Cf. Joint expert opinion provided by affidavit by Luis Fondebrider, Mercedes C. Doretti and Silvana Turner on April 18, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folio 10311). 417 Cf. Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Tal Linda Ileen Simmons received on April 18, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folios 10407 to 10408). 418 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 145. 86