35 183. Under the heading “corpus delicti” the judge states that “there is no evidence of the corpus delicti”. While the preamble mentions that 119 skeletons were found, it adds that these were deteriorated by time and the nature of the terrain and no witness or injured party has been able to identify them. It also includes a quotation from article 164.2 of the code of criminal procedure, indicating that the act of exhumation must identify the body by appropriate means and, if necessary, an autopsy must be 196 ordered. 184. Under the heading “participation” the judge declares that “there is sufficient evidence of collective participation by members of the armed forces or the Atlacatl Battalion”. However, “there is no statement of a witness or injured party to identify or implicate any person in the crime”. Finally, “the 197 means of investigation for discovering those involved have been exhausted”. 185. In the decision itself, the judge ordered the following: In light of the General Amnesty Act for Consolidation of the Peace decreed by the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador pursuant to Decree No. 486 published in the Official Gazette 56, [this Court orders] definitive dismissal of charges against any person belonging to the Atlacatl Battalion at the time of the event, in connection with the massacre that occurred, and [orders] the case to be 198 filed. E. Appeals to reopen the process 186. After the dismissal of criminal case 238-90, on November 23, 2006 the Second Court of First Instance of San Francisco Gotera was presented with “a particular accusation against those responsible for the massacres”. That petition requested that the case be reopened, that the suspended investigations be renewed, and that those responsible for the massacres should be punished, on the basis of the ruling of September 26, 2000 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which found, in relation to the General Amnesty Law, “that this law should not be applicable to 199 serious violations of human rights” . The details of that decision are dealt with in the section on the background. 187. On November 30, 2006 the Court admitted the submission, indicating that it was not possible to consider the petitions presented because “the original documentation for case 238/90 known as the ‘massacre at El Mozote and neighboring locales’ was currently held at the seat of the Supreme Court of Justice. Since that date there has been no further pronouncement or any forward movement in 200 the process. 188. On August 13, 2007 the Tutela Legal reiterated its petition to reopen the investigations, 201 and to date has received no response from the judicial authority . In their most recent statements the petitioners reaffirmed that “the investigations have not been reopened nor have the specific steps requested been taken to clarify the truth”. The State did not dispute this information. 196 Ibid. 197 Ibid. 198 Ibid. 199 These actions were recounted by the petitioners in the merits stage and were not disputed by the State. 200 These actions were recounted by the petitioners in the merits stage and were not disputed by the State 201 These actions were recounted by the petitioners in the merits stage and were not disputed by the State