24 store in that place.90 The soldiers ordered the father of Santos Ernesto to leave, because otherwise he would be killed, and so he fled from his house.91 64. Members of the National Guard and the Atlacatl Battalion then forced their way into the place where Santos Ernesto Salinas was taking refuge and detained all those present. Then they led them to the river bank and assassinated all those who were not children. 92 Santos Ernesto Salinas was taken away to an unknown destination.93 That day, local residents saw members of the National Guard taking away two children, one of whom matched the physical description of Santos Ernesto Salinas.94 The following day, Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta went out to look for his brother, but did not find him.95 65. After the conflict ended, family members made several attempts to find Santos Ernesto Salinas and, on October 22, 1998, submitted his case to the Search Association.96 66. In August 2002, María Adela Iraheta visited the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, at the San Vicente office, to file a complaint regarding the forced disappearance of her son. However, the officials did not admit her complaint, indicating that she should present it in the city of San Salvador.97 67. In October 2002, Mrs. Iraheta filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her son Santos Ernesto Salinas before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. 98 Together with the brief, she provided her son’s birth certificate and the statement of a witness as evidence.99 The executing judge hearing the proceedings stated that “[…] there [was] no investigation or investigative steps being taken against the beneficiary, […] for which reason the habeas corpus proceeding […] cannot [be] the subject of study by the law.”100 On March 3, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of habeas corpus,101 arguing that the petitioner had not “provide[d] any evidence to demonstrate that we are indeed faced with a case of forced disappearance of persons” and that, “in this situation, and given that this Chamber only has the word of the petitioner, on the one hand, Cf. Affidavit rendered by Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta on March 20, 2014 (evidence file, volume X, affidavits, folios 4741 to 4742). 90 91 Facts acknowledged by the State. 92 Facts acknowledged by the State. Cf. Affidavit rendered by Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta on March 20, 2014 (evidence file, volume X, affidavits, folios 4741 to 4742), and writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court presented by María Adela Iraheta on October 17, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folio 1897). 93 Facts acknowledged by the State. Cf., also writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court submitted by María Adela Iraheta on October 17, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folio 1897). 94 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta on March 20, 2014 (evidence file, volume X, affidavits, folios 4741 to 4742). 95 Cf. Telefax issued by the Search Association on February 2, 2005 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume II, folio 969). 96 97 Facts acknowledged by the State. Cf. Writ of habeas corpus filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court by María Adela Iraheta on October 17, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folios 1897 to 1900). 98 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court presented by María Adela Iraheta on October 17, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folios 1897 to 1900). 99 Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceeding No. 217-2002 on March 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 15 to the submission of the case, folios 1904). 100 Cf. Ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceeding No. 217-2002 on March 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 15 to the submission of the case, folios 1904 to 1906). 101