-28body of evidence which will be considered as a whole.14 VI PROVEN FACTS 47. Having examined the documents and the statements of the witnesses, the reports of the expert witnesses, and the arguments of the Commission, the representatives, and the State during these proceedings, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT 48(1) From approximately 1980 to 1991, El Salvador was engaged in an internal armed conflict during which forced disappearances occurred. The consequences of the latter were examined and discussed by the Truth Commission for El Salvador sponsored by the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, international organizations, State authorities and bodies, and other organizations. 48(2) On May 31, 1996, the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos (hereinafter “la Asociación Pro-Búsqueda” or “Pro-Búsqueda”) filed a complaint before the Ombudsman’s Office concerning the alleged disappearance of 145 children during the armed conflict in El Salvador; among them, the Association reported the case of the alleged disappearance of the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, in June 1982 in Chalatenango. Their mother, María Victoria Cruz Franco, initiated the search for her daughters, Ernestina and Erlinda, and resorted to State authorities and non-governmental organizations, such as Pro-Búsqueda, in order to trace her daughters and discover what had happened to them. 48(3) Based on Pro-Búsqueda’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s office undertook several investigations into cases of children who had been victims of forced disappearance during the internal armed conflict. On February 5, 1998, the Ombudsman’s Office asked the Chalatenango Trial Court to provide information “on the current status of the Ernestina and Erlinda case.” On February 9, 1998, the Chalatenango Trial Court advised the Ombudsman’s Office that case No. 112/93 filed against members of the Atlacatl Battalion for the abduction of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz had been “totally investigated, and it ha[d] not been possible to substantiate the alleged crime or the whereabouts of the children.” Two decisions and one report of the Ombudsman’s Office referred specifically to the case of the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz. A decision of March 30, 1998, indicated, inter alia, that, in the criminal case filed concerning what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda, there had been a violation “of due legal process[,] owing to acts that constituted denial of justice and failure to comply with the right to receive prompt justice[, …] which could be attributed to the judge with jurisdiction.” It recommended she “be more attentive to the principle of procedural diligence.” On May 27, 1998, the Chalatenango Trial Court filed the criminal proceedings (infra para. 48(25)). 48(4) In the second decision, dated February 10, 2003, the Ombudsman’s Office reiterated, inter alia, the operative paragraphs of the decision of March 30, 1998, 14 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 87; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 75; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 48(