15.The Salvadoran State also adds that applicable international law in an armed conflict is International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3, which is common to the four Geneva Conventions, supplemented by Protocol II. The State, in this regard, states the following: It is certain that, on principle, International Human Rights Law is applicable by governments, but in certain armed conflicts, as a result of the previously mentioned rules, International Humanitarian Law is binding on both sides, that is, for both the insurgents and government forces.…. 2 [w]ith the above, although total enforcement [of International Humanitarian Law] probably cannot be guaranteed in practice, there was an abundance of regulations, which even if only minimally enforced did provide an indication of protection of human rights for all Salvadorans; because this legal framework did exist, in addition to the surveillance and support that was given in this process of protection of human rights, Professor Pastor Ridruejo concluded that the State did make available to the petitioners the guarantees and means to achieve an effective defense of their rights.” 3 16.On the basis of this information, the State requests the IACHR to rule that there was “[n]o systematic practice involving the disappearance of children by the Armed Forces of El Salvador.” 17.Regarding the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law, the State contends that these remedies have not been exhausted. First, it notes that the petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in 2002, that is, 22 years after the incident took place. The Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling on March 3, 2003, dismissing the proceedings, contending that the petitioning party did not submit enough elements on the alleged missing child. The State claims that, on the basis of that judgment, the Court departed from its previous case law rulings aimed at protecting the right to physical liberty of missing persons, because the parties did not provide sufficient background information. It further adds that, if the motion had been filed earlier, it would have been possible to gather more information. That State notes that this judiciary ruling does not exhaust domestic deliberations, because if the parties present fresh evidence concerning the alleged crime, a motion for the issuance of a new writ of habeas corpus can be filed. 18. Regarding the criminal investigation, the Salvadoran State contends that the investigation phase continues in the Attorney General’s Office, and it is being conducted by the attorney Daycel Marroquín. It indicates that, as part of the current investigation, on August 28, 2003, an investigator and the prosecutor in charge of the case, went to the place where the petitioner alleges that the incidents took place in order to gather information, but that it was not possible to gather any information because many of the inhabitants from that time had died whereas others had left the area. It adds that, since the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, too little time has elapsed to finalize the investigation of the case, especially taking into consideration the time that has elapsed since the alleged disappearance. 19. Furthermore, the State contends that the petitioners could have benefited from a series of alternate remedies such as the Government Commission on Human Rights of El Salvador. They could also have appealed to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which installed a permanent delegation in El Salvador during the conflict. The State adds that, on September 12, 1980, it signed a headquarters Agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross to install a permanent delegation of this organization in El Salvador. By virtue of this agreement, the ICRC installed a search agency to record the requests made by relatives concerning persons who had supposedly been arrested or reported missing. Two of these offices were located in Santa Ana and San Miguel. It is argued that, in the document delivered by the ICRC on May 15, 1993 and compiling the reports received regarding disappearances from 1979 to 1992, there was no document reporting the disappearance of children. The State notes that the petitioners did not report the alleged incidents to any of these organizations. Because of this, the State requests the IACHR to declare the complaint inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 2 3 Response from the State of March 5, 2005 to the initial petition, p. 2. In its response of March 5, the State cites the report submitted by professor José Antonio Pastor Ridruejo to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to the mandate granted by Resolution 1983/29 of that Commission, of January 19, 1984, in which the P.O.N. is determined to be in force [“Normal Operating Procedure for detentions by the Armed Forces”]. That procedure establishes that minors found should be taken to safe places. 4