48 of National Defense244 requesting information on members of the armed forces and on military operations in the area and on the date of the facts, to which no response was received or, when there was a response, the answer was that no information had been found about the operations at the place and on the date of the events;245 a request for authorization to inspect the files in the judicial archives on adoptions or protective proceedings carried out between 1980 and 1993;246 a request to the National Registry of Natural Persons for certification for José Adrián Rochac Hernández, the response being that there was no record of that person’s identity document,247 and for witnesses;248 and checking possible migratory movements by land, sea or air of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, without finding any record.249 147. These investigations are still ongoing, but as yet none of the possible perpetrators have been identified or brought to trial; some actions are still pending, such as making further requests for information from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, taking witness statements and inspecting files related to the adoption of children. 148. In analyzing the effectiveness of the investigations conducted in this case, the Court advises that, from the evidence it appears that although the authorities in charge of the investigations carried out certain fact-finding activities, they did not exhaust all the measures that should have been taken to identify the possible perpetrators and, if appropriate, bring charges against them. 149. Thus, no steps were taken to inspect newspaper archives which could have provided information on the individuals who participated in the military operations conducted in the place and at the time of the facts;250 and the investigation did not incorporate the relevant sections of the Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, which contain the names of some of the soldiers who took part in the operations, such as those related to the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places. 251 Similarly, the conclusions reached by the Ombudsman’s Office and the evidence provided to the investigations indicated the military units that supposedly participated in the operations and named some of the authorities in charge of them. However, that information was not used in any line of investigation and no member of the Armed Forces was charged or summoned to testify. In other words, none of the investigations tried to obtain further evidence to confirm or disprove the responsibility of the individuals accused. Cf. Official letters of November 29, 2010, March 4, 2013, and reply of March 8, 2013, in Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4327 to 4328, 4505 and 4524). 244 Cf. Official letters received on September 7 and December 22, 2010, in Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4319 and 4351). 245 246 4316). 247 4324). 248 4375). 249 Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02, at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4315 to Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4323 and Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4374 to Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4526 to 4529). For example, the expert witness Iglesias mentioned that during the period of the forced disappearances in this case “[t]he Armed Forces had what was known as the Armed Forces Press Committee COPRESA, which had very clear reports about where the operations were being carried out, the names of the officers responsible, and this was published and sent out in newsletters and […] it was even published in the press – in other words, there is information.” Expert opinion rendered by Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera before the Inter-American Court in the public hearing held on May 17, 2011, in the case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. See also press reports describing the operations related to these cases (evidence file, volume V, annex 30 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief). 250 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 84, citing the Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From Madness to Hope: The 12-Year War in El Salvador, 1992-1993. 251