25 87. In this regard, the Court has noted that both the Commission and the representatives have submitted various facts to the Court’s consideration related to alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 17, 18 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, which had allegedly occurred after recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction and in the context of the alleged lack of an investigation at the domestic level to determine what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz. In other words, the Commission and the representatives established a close connection between some of the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 17, 18 and 19 of the American Convention, and the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 88. Regarding the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, the Commission indicated that there had been “a total absence of adequate measures of investigation”; and that, “[i]n some cases when the respective State has not investigated allegations of arbitrary deprivation of life, the international courts have determined their responsibility for violating this fundamental right.” 89. In the case of the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Commission indicated in its final oral and written arguments that, owing to “the failure to comply with its obligation to investigate what happened,” the State had violated the mental and moral integrity of the Serrano Cruz sisters, because “they continue to be deprived of their identity and contact with their biological family.” The Commission also indicated that the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda are allegedly direct victims of the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention “because they do not know the whereabouts of [the girls], which causes them great anguish.” The representatives added that the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda have suffered frustration and impotence owing to the failure of the public authorities to investigate the facts, “punish [those] responsible,” and due to the “denial of justice.” 90. Regarding the violation of Article 17 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Serrano Cruz sisters and their next of kin, the Commission stated that “the lack of diligence in the investigation and determination of the whereabouts [of Ernestina and Erlinda], constitutes a violation of the rights protected by Article 17 of the Convention.” Both the Commission and the representatives mentioned that, according to Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the State has the obligation not only to allow the next of kin to carry out a search, but also to facilitate it with “timely measures” such as the identification and registration of children for family reunification. The representatives also indicated that “far from taking any measure of this type, [El Salvador] ensured non-reunification […] by different acts and omissions,” such as the creation of obstacles to prevent finding Ernestina and Erlinda, and the way in which the criminal investigation has been carried out “owing to the lack of impartiality and diligence” with which it was conducted. In this regard, the representatives indicated expressly that these arguments refer to events relating to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 91. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 18 of the American Convention, the Commission indicated that “[t]he State’s obligation to clarify the facts and establish the whereabouts of the two disappeared children subsists fully in the instant case, [because] if they are still alive, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz have the right to know their origins, which complements the right of the next of kin to know their whereabouts.” The representatives argued that “the State has also violated the right to identity of the girls by trying to deny their existence before the Court.”