47 investigate those forced disappearances ex officio. B. Lack of due diligence in the criminal investigations 144. The Court has confirmed that, in its submission brief, the Commission referred to the investigations undertaken up to September 2003, at which time the State had only opened an investigation into the forced disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández. 236The State forwarded a copy of the investigation file opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango for the forced disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, as a result of the complaint filed by his father on April 12, 2002 (supra para. 57), containing information up to October 30, 2013 (Case File 321-UMMD-02). The information available also indicates that in 2009, a few days prior to the hearing before the Inter-American Commission, criminal investigations were opened into the forced disappearances of Santos Ernesto Salinas by the Prosecutor’s Office of San Vicente (Case File 908-UDVSV-2009), Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala by the Prosecutor’s Office of San Vicente (Case File 909-UDVSV-2009), and Emelinda Lorena Hernández by the Prosecutor’s Office of San Francisco Gotera (Case File 908-UDVOFM-2009); these investigations were in their initial stages, without having identified the possible authors. 237 However, the Commission’s merits report did not include the facts related to those investigations. Therefore, in this section, the Court will determine the omissions and failings committed by the authorities based on the factual context provided by the Commission, regarding which the State acknowledged its responsibility, and the evidence provided concerning the investigation into the forced disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández. 145. From the information provided it is clear that, after the complaint was filed for the forced disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, in August 2003, efforts were made to obtain information on possible incursions by the army, by taking a statement from the petitioner and from a neighbor.238 However, the procedural activity only began in November 2009. In other words, initially the investigation remained inactive for more than six years.239 146. A number of evidence gathering procedures were carried out including: an interview with the petitioner;240 taking statements from individuals cited as witnesses by the petitioner;241 visual inspection and mapping of the site of the events, and compiling an album of photographs of the site;242 official written notices were sent to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces243 and the Minister With respect to the disappearance of Santos Ernesto Salinas, the Commission indicated that “[t]here is no information on the impetus and/or result of the criminal investigation.” Report on Merits No. 75/12 issued by the Inter-American Commission on November 7, 2012, para. 224. However, previously it had indicated that “the officials did not admit the complaint, indicating that she had to go to the city of San Salvador,” which was acknowledged by the State. Cf. Merits Report No. 75/12 issued by the Inter-American Commission on November 7, 2012, para. 104. 236 See, for example, the letter of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda addressed to the Commission of Justice and Human Rights of the Legislative Assembly on December 3, 2010 (evidence file, volume V, annex 33 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2451 to 2467), which mentions that in the investigation regarding Emelinda Lorena Hernández, begun on October 30, 2009, only three interviews were conducted. 237 238 3993). Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 3992 and 239 Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folio 4007). 240 Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4234 to 4236). Cf. Statement of María Juliana Rochac Hernández of December 7, 2010, in Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4341 to 4345). 241 Cf. Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folio 4020 and 4258 to 4263). 242 Cf. Official letters of November 9, 2009, March 26, 2010 and August 26, 2010 in Case File 321-UMM-D-02 at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Soyapango (evidence file, volume VIII, folios 4009 to 4010; 4256 to 4257; 4317 to 4318). 243