-15During the first years of the armed conflict, the remedy of habeas corpus was utterly ineffective for locating and obtaining the liberty of those who had been disappeared forcibly. Between 1984 and 1986, a large number of petitions for habeas corpus were filed, and they were totally ineffective in cases of detentions and forced disappearances. The denial of the remedy of habeas corpus in favor of disappeared persons continued throughout the 1990s. As of the judgment delivered in case 379-2000 in favor of the children, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, the restrictive concept of habeas corpus as a procedure limited to protecting the victim only in cases of illegal detention and not in cases of forced disappearance was overruled. In this regard, positive progress was made in case law, “because habeas corpus was considered admissible for cases of disappearance.” However, the Constitutional Chamber “annulled the effectiveness of the remedy,” because it did not integrate the obligation to take measures to establish the whereabouts of disappeared persons into the habeas corpus procedure. The Army high command repeatedly denied the existence of the crimes and hindered investigations. Those who took steps to trace their next of kin suffered persecution and placed their lives in danger. In its final report, the Truth Commission recommended a thorough judicial reform and the resignation of all the member of the Supreme Court of Justice. Following the armed conflict, the justice system has been incapable of initiating reliable and effective investigations into the crimes that occurred during this conflict. In El Salvador, “a situation of impunity has been created,” which is clearly reflected in the 1993 Amnesty Act. Most of the cases brought before the courts when the conflict ended were filed, owing to application of the said law or the statute of limitations, and many proceedings concerning forced disappearance were filed, based on the argument that the investigations had been exhausted without achieving effective results. In 1998 and 2003, the El Salvador Ombudsman’s Office issued public reports on the pattern of forced disappearances of children during the conflict, and its impunity. The expert witness referred to the recommendations made by the Office in this regard, which have not been complied with. b) Proposed by the representatives 4. Ana C. Deutsch, psychologist The expert witness interviewed the Serrano Cruz family on February 14, 2004. She conducted individual interviews with Ernestina and Erlinda’s mother and with the following siblings: Suyapa, Martha, Rosa and José Fernando, all Serrano Cruz. She was unable to interview Arnulfo and Oscar Serrano Cruz, Ernestina and Erlinda’s brothers; however, the family indicated that they suffered just as much. She reached the following conclusions: the children’s disappearance created an “ambiguous area” in the life of the family owing to the uncertainty of not knowing where they were and to the hope that they would appear at any moment. The uncertainty, ambiguity and impotence caused the members of the family great sorrow and were a “source of permanent anxiety” that was renewed each day. The disappearance of the children was very harsh for the mother, owing to their age at the time they disappeared.