- 7family, and is expressly recognized in various international legal instruments.13 This protection acquires special relevance when examining the separation of the family14 and the failure to adopt the necessary measures to seek those who disappeared when they were children and whose families have asked the State to determine their whereabouts in order to re-establish the ties that bind them, when possible. In this regard, the Court understands that the protection of the family includes not only the State's obligation to allow family coexistence, but also its obligation to promote family relations through the different State agencies. The Court observes that, while what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda has not been determined, their next of kin cannot re-establish family relations with them. 144. Notwithstanding the special circumstances in which the Serrano Cruz sisters were separated from their family and the justification or lack of justification for this, the Court considers that the State should have used all possible means to determine their whereabouts and, if applicable, reunite them with their next of kin15 as soon as circumstances permitted. 145. Paragraph 3(b) of Article 4 (Fundamental guarantees) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) establishes that “all appropriate steps shall be taken to facilitate the reunion of families temporarily separated.” 146. Likewise, Principle 17 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement of 11 February 1998 establishes that “[e]very human being has the right to respect of his or her family life” and that “[f]amilies which are separated by displacement should be reunited as quickly as possible.” In this regard, the Principle stipulates that “[a]ll appropriate steps shall be taken to expedite the reunion of such families.” This Principle also establishes that “[t]he responsible authorities shall facilitate inquiries made by family members and encourage and cooperate with the work of humanitarian organizations engaged in the task of family reunification.” 147. Furthermore, this Court considers it necessary to emphasize that Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the State's obligation “to take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, […] or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.” 148. With regard to these State obligations, the Court observes that, given the grave post-conflict consequences of a historical situation such as the one experienced by El Salvador, the fact that this conflict has ended and that individuals who were children at the time are now young people or adults, does not exempt the 13 Cf. Indeed, this is contemplated Articles 12 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 11(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 14 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 71. 15 Cf. Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 84, ECHR 2004-III; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR, 2003-V; and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, §45, ECHR 2003-IV.