35 a) The forced disappearance of the girls was alleged in the context of an internal armed conflict characterized by massive human rights violations and not as a fact “on the margin” of this conflict, as the State affirms; b) It had not requested the Court to apply international humanitarian law, but to apply the American Convention in order to establish the international responsibility of El Salvador for the forced disappearance of the Serrano Cruz sisters, because the two minors enjoyed its full protection, “particularly, from the moment they were in the power of State agents.” This protection included an investigation into their whereabouts and the punishment of those responsible for the facts. “Consequently, the Inter-American Commission will refrain from referring to the arguments of the State on the applicability of international humanitarian law”; c) The Court has examined cases of forced disappearance of persons in the context of an internal armed conflict and has defined the scope of the State’s obligation under the American Convention. The State attempts to justify the human rights violations committed by its agents alleging the Serrano Cruz family’s active participation in the guerrilla. In other words, instead of investigating the whereabouts of the children, Ernestina and Erlinda, the State tries to blame the family for their disappearance; d) The State has incurred in numerous contradictions, because, on the one hand, it blames the Serrano Cruz family for the facts and, on the other hand, it speculates that the Serrano Cruz sisters did not exist. Moreover, it does not present any evidence to show that, after they had been captured by members of the Atlacatl Battalion, the Serrano Cruz sisters were handed over to the Salvadoran Red Cross or the International Committee of the Red Cross, as it has affirmed; and e) “The fact that international human rights law is applicable particularly in times of peace does not mean that it is not applicable in times of conflict.” The American Convention has been binding and fully applicable in El Salvador since June 23, 1978, the date of which it ratified this treaty. The protection system established by the American Convention is such that, even in the circumstances indicated in its Article 27, it establishes a firm nucleus of rights that are non-derogable in situations of war, public danger, or other emergency. “Without invalidating the lex specialis nature of international humanitarian law and the important protections that it offers in times of conflict, the fact that the American Convention on Human Rights was fully applicable in El Salvador during the internal conflict is not in question. The facts before the Court refer to violations of this instrument.” Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 110. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin requested the Court to “reject” this objection, because: a) The reasoning used by the State ignores the need to apply international law and international humanitarian law harmoniously and to foster the applicability of the latter in times of war, “failing to appreciate that human rights are applicable in grave situations of conflict.” Also, the State’s