6 live. They alleged that the next-of-kin have made great efforts to determine their whereabouts and turned to the state authorities from whom they have received an omissive and negligent response. They indicated that this situation is a source of feelings of permanent impotence and suffering. They added that the disappearances were not isolated events, but that they took place during a period of violence, death, loss, and fear, in which people were being uprooted. 45. As for the right to life, they argued that it was violated to the detriment of all the disappeared victims, since while it is likely that they are still alive, there is no certainty of it, and it is up to the State to verify what has happened. They alleged that as regards forced disappearance, it is presumed that the victims have been deprived of life with the passage of time. They also noted that the disappearances occurred in the context of military operations in which hundreds of persons perished. 46. With respect to the right to the recognition of juridical personality, the petitioners argued 1 that forced disappearance entails being excluded from the legal and institutional order of the State. 47. As for the rights to due process and judicial protection, the petitioners alleged that these rights were violated to the detriment of Emelinda Lorena, José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio, and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and to the detriment of their next-of-kin. They noted that these violations have taken place at different moments: first, when the disappeared victims were arbitrarily abducted and impeded from having any access to mechanisms of judicial protection to make effective, for them, all the guarantees of due process and to determine the legality of their detentions, ordering that they be returned to their families; second, when the writs of habeas corpus were dismissed based on the argument that the family members did not produce sufficient information to characterize a forced disappearance, even though the investigation is to be carried out by the “executing judge”; and finally, as a consequence of the negligent and omissive attitude of the courts and prosecutors, to whom the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson made a recommendation to investigate, prosecute, and punish the persons responsible for the disappearances. In the case of José Adrián Rochac Hernández the petitioners also alleged unwarranted delay in the criminal proceedings. 48. As for the right to the family, the petitioners alleged that the intent behind the disappearance of children by the State during the armed conflict was precisely the separation of the family, to sow terror among those persons who supposedly supported the guerrilla forces and to keep their children from being useful to the guerrillas. In the case of the families in the instant case, the separation caused directly by members of the Salvadoran armed forces persists to this day, for despite the efforts of the family members and the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda to locate the disappeared victims it has been impossible to determine their fate and their whereabouts. The petitioners indicated that the Salvadoran State has sought the non-reunification of the families through its various acts and omissions. As an example they mentioned that the state agents who abducted José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio, and Ricardo Abarca Ayala knew their places of origin despite which they took no steps to facilitate any reunion with their families, who were easy to locate. They also alleged that the failure to investigate and the impunity in the case have prolonged the separation of the family. 49. As for the right to a name, the petitioners alleged a violation of this right in the case of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio, and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. In these cases the petitioners alleged that if the children were found alive, it is not known whether they would still have the first and last names with which they were legally registered prior to the disappearance. In addition, they indicated that most of the children found by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda have been found alive. They indicated that based on the experience of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, it is highly likely that the disappeared children no longer use their original first and last names. They added that at the time of the armed conflict there was absolute flexibility for registering children, which facilitated changes in name, 1 It should be mentioned that the IACHR did not include the right to recognition of juridical personality in the admissibility report on the situation of José Adrián Rochac Hernández. In the merits stage the petitioners did not make any arguments with respect to this right in relation to José Adrián Rochac Hernández.