-68shall encourage and cooperate with the work of humanitarian organizations engaged in the task of family reunification; c) The measures taken by State agents were far from efficient and tending to reunify the Serrano Cruz sisters with their family; they have not established any mechanism or body responsible for investigating and providing information on the whereabouts of the disappeared children to their next of kin. The State has not acted with due diligence to give the Serrano Cruz children and their family the possibility of a reunion during or after the conflict; and d) “Far from taking any measure in this regard, [the State] ensured nonreunification through different acts and omissions,” such as creating obstacles to prevent Ernestina and Erlinda being found and by the way in which it has carried out the criminal investigation “with a lack of impartiality and diligence,” or by the refusal to provide information. In this regard, the representatives indicated expressly that these arguments were related to the State’s arguments concerning the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 120. With regard to Article 18 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the representatives stated that: a) The right to a name is linked intrinsically to recognition of personal identity, which also implies belonging to a family and to a community. In this regard, the Court should use the Convention on the Rights of the Child to interpret the content of Article 18 of the American Convention; b) The right to a name has two dimensions. First, the right of all children to have a name and be duly registered; failure to respect this right means that a child would not be recognized by the State or society, and this would make it possible for the child to be trafficked, abducted or subjected to other treatment incompatible with the enjoyment of its rights. The second dimension is the right to preserve identity, including nationality, name and family relationships pursuant to the law, without unlawful interference; c) “The sisters, [Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz,] disappeared after they had been separated from their family due to a military operation in their community by the Salvadoran Army. This violation continues, because it is a consequence of the disappearance and […] the lack of information on their whereabouts”; d) The positive obligation embodied in Article 18 of the Convention results from the registration of the children in the corresponding registry office, which is the State’s express recognition of a child’s identity and its membership in a family, a society and a culture. Conversely, the negative obligation refers to the State authorities abstaining from divesting a person of “the duly registered name that he has already been given, without a corresponding procedure or proceeding”; e) The fact that the Serrano Cruz sisters were registered in the corresponding registry office does not exclude the possibility that they were subsequently divested of their real names, for example, by being given up in