-32care to [the] displaced ha[d] been implemented most widely in Chalatenango[, …
whence] they […] brought 52 [orphaned children] ranging from new-born babies to
just two of twelve years old]. For the Executive Committee’s information, these]
children [were] accommodated in[:] the Rosa Virginia Home, the Centro de
Observaciones de Menores, Tutelar de Menores, the Guirol Home in Santa Tecla, SOS
Villages […].” In the official record of this procedure, the executing officer noted that
“in these documents, there [was] no mention of the whereabouts of the children,
Ernestina Serrano Cruz and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, because [the Salvadoran Red
Cross] [did] not conduct investigations […] and only assisted those persons in need;
consequently, there was no type of document that [… would] indicate the
whereabouts of the children in [that] office.” The executing officer for the writ of
habeas corpus did not visit the centers indicated in the document shown to her by
the head of the Salvadoran Red Cross Tracing Office.
48(19) On January 17, 1996, the executing officer returned the file to the
Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice so that it could take a
decision, since it was not “possible to notify Captain José Alfredo Jiménez Moreno
and Officer Rolando Adrián Ticas[, …] as she did not have the exact addresses of
their places of residence (supra paras. 48(15) and 48(17)).
48(20) On February 12, 1996, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Justice asked the Chalatenango Trial Court to forward the file of case No. 112/93 on
the criminal proceedings “file[d] against the Armed Forces of the Atlacatl Battalion
for the crime of the abduction of the children, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano,” “in
order to decide the petition for habeas corpus in favor” of the said sisters. On
February 27, 1996, the Constitutional Chamber received the file.
48(21) On March 14, 1996, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Justice decided to discontinue the habeas corpus procedure “because the procedural
grounds for establishing a violation of the constitution had not been established,” on
the basis that “habeas corpus [… was] not an appropriate means of investigating the
whereabouts of a persons illegally detained 13 years previously […] by members of
the Atlacatl Battalion, [the military leaders of which] c[ould] not be notified[, since
this battalion] no longer exist[ed] owing to the Peace Agreements.” The
Constitutional Chamber “forward[ed] [this decision] to the Chalatenango Trial Judge,
together with case No. 112/93, so that the Trial Court [could] continue investigating
the reported facts” and then advise the Chamber. The file of the proceeding before
the Chalatenango Trial Court does not contain any information that the court advised
the Constitutional Chamber about the investigations.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CHALATENANGO TRIAL COURT
48(22) By June 6, 1995, the date on which El Salvador accepted the Court’s
jurisdiction, case No. 112/93, corresponding to the criminal proceedings initiated by
the complaint submitted by María Victoria Cruz Franco on April 30, 1993, had been
filed by the Chalatenango Trial Court. The proceedings had been “instituted against
the armed forces of the Atlacatl Battalion for the criminal offence of abduction of the
children, Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz,” “during [the] military operation on
June 2, 1982,” known as the “guinda de mayo.” This investigation had been filed
since September 22, 1993, almost five months after the investigation into the facts
began, because “the […] preliminary investigation had been carried out and [the
identity of the persons or persons who had abducted the [said] children [had not