4 the last nine months by [this] prosecutor[, when the case had been re-opened, following the Commission’s notification of the petition filed against the State, was] to ask the International Committee of the Red Cross [...] to advise who these minors had been handed over to.” The petitioners indicated that the Salvadoran authorities had not taken any steps to guarantee the effectiveness of the investigation, identify those responsible for the facts, punish them, and make reparation to the victims or their next of kin. 7. On February 23, 2001, the Commission adopted Report Nº 31/01, in which it decided “to declare the case admissible, since it referred to alleged violations of rights protected by Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the American Convention.” In this Admissibility Report, the Commission decided to apply the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention in this case, on the basis that “domestic remedies ha[d] not functioned with the effectiveness required in an investigation of a report of forced disappearance.” 8. On March 9, 2001, the Inter-American Commission notified the Admissibility Report to the parties and made itself available to them in order to reach a friendly settlement, pursuant to the provisions of Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention. 9. On January 29, 2002, after various efforts had been made by the parties to achieve a friendly settlement, the petitioners requested the Commission to end the attempt to reach this settlement and to continue examining the merits of the case. 10. On June 24, 2002, the petitioners submitted their comments on the merits of the case, indicating that “[a]ll the steps taken before the authorities to clarify the facts, including the criminal complaint and the petition for habeas corpus have been unsuccessful” and that “the denial of justice that the Serrano Family ha[d] faced in their search for [the minors]” was therefore evident. 11. On November 13, 2002, the State submitted a communication, in response to the comments presented by the petitioners (supra para. 10), in which it indicated, inter alia, that “[i]t was unable to assume the responsibility alleged by the petitioners and c[ould] not be accused of the violation of the human rights and freedoms in light of the American Convention,” and also that “[t]he procedure it ha[d] followed in the case reveal[ed] that it ha[d] exercised the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction and that [...] the criminal proceeding was almost completed without the evidence received having proved that it really was elements of the Salvadoran Army who had abducted [Ernestina and Erlinda], or whether they had been handed over to the Salvadoran Red Cross or the International Committee of the Red Cross,” so that “[s]ince no one has been found responsible, it was again in order to file the criminal case for administrative purposes, although it would not be closed for subsequent investigations.” 12. On March 4, 2003, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted Report No. 37/03, in which it concluded that: The facts established in the […] report constitute violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the American Convention; and violation of the obligation to respect and guarantee embodied in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz. The facts also constitute the violation of Articles 5, 8, 17, 25 and 1(1) to the detriment of the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz.