-48to this end, requested they be confiscated; g) “The State has unjustifiably delayed decisions on domestic remedies, particularly with regard to progress in the criminal case […]. The evident complexity of the case does not exempt the State from conducting a thorough and prompt investigation.” The failure of El Salvador to comply with this obligation has had serious consequences for the collection of evidence; h) The criminal case has been filed, even though some investigations were pending. The unjustified delay in providing justice in this case results from the indifference of those in charge of administering justice and from obstruction, by act or omission, by the Executive Power. Likewise, the Legislature has made a “decisive contribution to impunity with the adoption of the amnesty law,” which has allowed “the vast majority of crimes against humanity committed during the war, as well as grave human rights violations, to remain unpunished.” In this case, there is a significant possibility that impunity will prevail, either by application of the amnesty law or by a declaration that the case has prescribed; i) The remedy of habeas corpus and the criminal complaint have not resulted in finding the Serrano Cruz sisters, or punishing those responsible. “The denial of justice endured by the Serrano family in its search for them is therefore obvious”; j) The siblings of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz have the right to know what happened to their sisters, as did their mother, father and deceased siblings. “This is especially important because, as can be inferred from the testimonies that Elsy Dubón and Father Jon Cortina gave before the Court, and also from some documentary evidence presented during the proceeding, it is possible that Erlinda and Ernestina are alive.” The need to know the whereabouts of Ernestina and Erlinda “provides a glimmer of hope for the disappeared children – today, young women – to learn their identity.” “They, their next of kin, and society as a whole must know what happened to them and they, in particular, must know that they have a family waiting for them with open arms”; and k) They requested the Court “to declare that the Salvadoran State is responsible for the failure to conscientiously investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible; and also for violation of the right to truth.” Arguments of the State 51. With regard to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the State alleged that it had not violated these norms and stated: a) The petition for habeas corpus filed by Ernestina and Erlinda’s mother was not appropriate to identify the authors of the punishable facts; they must be tried by the corresponding criminal instance. Also, since it was filed 13 years after the alleged detention of the Serrano Cruz sisters, it was not appropriate for discovering their whereabouts; b) “The criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court […] are