-54For example, with regard to the procedural actions relating to the Red Cross, the prosecutor and the judge let almost one year and eight months elapse from the moment, during the procedure of inspecting the records, when the Director General of the Salvadoran Red Cross stated that he “d[id] not have [the] records for the work of counseling and attention to the displaced for 1982, because the International Red Cross ha[d] those documents or records,” to take steps to request information from the International Committee of the Red Cross (supra para. 48(59)). In the case of the procedural actions concerning the Armed Forces, for example, the prosecutor and the judge let three months elapse before they made another request and ordered the inspection of the logbooks and records of the No. 1 Military Detachment of Chalatenango, which had remained pending when the first inspection was not carried out because the files were in disarray (supra para. 48(63) and 48(65)). Likewise, in 2002, a new prosecutor took over the investigation, but almost one year and eight months elapsed before he took the first measures in the proceedings (supra para. 48(69)). 72. Regarding this aspect of the lapse of time without any procedural action being taken, the Court observes that, although the State declared “it was firmly decided […] to continue the search” for Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz during the public hearing on September 8, 2004, no action was taken in the criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court from September 6, 2004, until January 21, 2005. It was only after the President of the Inter-American Court had requested the State to present information on any action that had been carried out in these criminal proceedings that, two days later, the prosecutor in the case requested the court to order two measures (supra para. 48(49) and 48(67)). 73. Furthermore, the State has not proved that the actions of the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz caused any of these delays. To the contrary, the Court has confirmed that, as of the habeas corpus procedure, the alleged victims’ mother submitted information, as did Suyapa Serrano Cruz, the alleged victims’ sister (supra para. 48(15) and 48(30)). As a result of this information, the head of the Red Cross Tracing Office provided important information to the proceedings, which, had it been corroborated or investigated, would have allowed the judicial authorities to take more diligent, effective and prompt action concerning the investigation into what befell Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, the determination of their whereabouts and the punishment of those responsible (supra para. 48(18), 48(43), 48(45), 48(46) and 48(47)). Likewise, the alleged victims’ mother supplied the names of two soldiers who might have been involved (supra para. 48(15)), and the latter did not testify during the habeas corpus procedure “because the exact addresses of their places of residence did not exist” (supra para. 48(19)) and they were not summoned during the criminal proceedings (supra para. 48(24) and 48(50)). 74. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the principle of reasonable time embodied in the American Convention has been disregarded in the criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court. b) Effectiveness of the habeas corpus procedure and the criminal proceedings 75. The guarantee of an effective remedy “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society