when it said that “From approximately 1980 to 1991, El Salvador was engaged in an internal armed conflict during which forced disappearances occurred.”2 14. The petitioners state that at the time it was not possible to file a complaint with the authorities because during the armed conflict there was a fear that anyone who went to the barracks would be seen as linked to the guerrillas and would suffer reprisals. In this connection, El Salvador’s Truth Commission noted that many human rights violations were committed against the civil population simply because they were thought to be guerrilla sympathizers, during the campaign, especially in the first years of “drain the water from the fish.” Under these circumstances, the petitioners say that they did not trust the authorities, especially when the Salvadoran army carried out the human rights violations. 15. As for the investigation, the petitioners state that all measures pursued in El Salvador have been ineffective and insufficient; and that although the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights called for an investigation, none was conducted by the Attorney General’s Office or any other competent state entity to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared girl. On this point, the petitioners say that Emelinda’s mother first denounced the facts to the Truth Commission in 1993, after peace was restored in El Salvador; however, owing to the short duration of the Truth Commission’s mandate, it could not open a chapter on disappearance of children, and decided to lump them under the general heading of forced disappearance of persons. The petitioners say that in 1994 Emelinda’s family also resorted to the Association for the Search for Disappeared Children to seek help in finding out what happened to their daughter. 16. Furthermore, the petitioners say that habeas corpus as an effective and appropriate remedy formally existed at the time of the disappearance of the minor Emelinda, but it was pointless to pursue it given the inability of the legal system to investigate cases or rule in favor of victims, and the circumstances of the family members, who were generally protecting themselves from military raids in areas far from the courts. Therefore, say the petitioners, it was not until November 15, 2002, that Ms. Adela Hernández filed a habeas corpus motion with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.3 In a resolution of March 3, 2003 (notified on March 11 of the same year), the Court suspended the remedy based on the lack of minimum evidence to give the court a reasonable presumption of the alleged forced disappearance, so it limited itself to the information by the defendant. 17. As for the applicable regulations, the petitioners say the Salvadoran State ratified the American Convention on June 23, 1978, and is therefore responsible for violations of it to the detriment of Emelinda Lorena Hernández. 18. In addition, concerning the argument of the State that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court after the facts in the instant petition, the petitioners say that argument is not pertinent because the petition is in the phase of admissibility by the Inter-American Commission. 19. In summary, the petitioners hold that initially, and until the establishment of the Truth Commission, there was no possibility in El Salvador for the petitioners to have access to any domestic remedy. They allege that since that time domestic remedies available in El Salvador have been ineffective for investigation of the facts, determination of the whereabouts of Emelinda Hernández, and making reparation for the consequences of the alleged violations. They also argue that more than 12 years have elapsed since the case was lodged with the TruthCommission during which the State’s attitude has been extremely negligent and disagreeable in the proceeding, notwithstanding that the facts justify a public criminal action. The petitioners therefore consider that the investigation has been foreordained to fail; and in 2 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, Judgment of March 1, 2005, Series C. No. 120, para. 48.1. According to the habeas corpus petition, the plaintiff documented the existence of the girl Emelinda Lorena Hernández by presenting her birth certificate. 3 3