22 55. Lastly, “in the cases of both adoptions through a legal procedure and appropriation of children, there was a practice of altering the minor’s identity; many were registered as sons and daughters; in other words, without the need to alter the records; in other cases the names or surnames were changed together with the child’s age.”54 VII RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, HUMANE TREATMENT, LIFE, JURIDICAL PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND FAMILY LIFE, IDENTITY, PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY, A NAME, AND OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS 56. Given the importance of establishing the facts in this case that resulted in State responsibility, as well as the context in which they took place, so as to preserve the historical memory and avoid the repetition of similar acts55 and as a form of reparations for the victims,56 in this section the Court will ascertain the facts of the case and the international responsibility arising from them, based on the factual framework presented in the Inter-American Commission’s application and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and taking into consideration the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief and the body of evidence. 57. The Court will now proceed to establish the facts that constituted each forced disappearance of the victims in this case, who were children at the time, as well as the circumstances surrounding it. However, the Court considers it pertinent to emphasize that these disappearances took place in the context of the armed conflict described above, particularly during the first years, in incidents that lasted between three and twelve days and in which the forced disappearances of adults and children, extrajudicial executions, and damage to property were all documented. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the InterAmerican Commission did not describe the specific context of each of the military operations in which the forced disappearances took place in their full breadth and context. Rather, it merely referred to the days and places strictly related to each specific incident. It was based on this factual framework that the State acknowledged its responsibility and it is to this framework that the Court will limit its ruling. A. Facts related to the forced disappearance of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez 58. Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez was born on April 12, 1966, and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez on June 27, 1974, both in the canton of Cerro Pando, in the municipality of Meanguera, Morazán, El Salvador. They are the daughters of Arcadia Ramírez and Tiburcio Mejía57 and 54 Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, La problemática de la niñez desaparecida en El Salvador, supra note 34, (evidence file, volume V, attachment 13 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folio 3585). Cf. see also expert opinion provided by Ana Georgina Ramos de Villalta, supra note 35, (evidence file, volume XI, affidavits, folios 7535 to 7537). 55 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 47, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 31. 56 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín, supra note 18, para. 39; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 55, para. 47, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 55, para. 31. 57 Cf. Birth certificate of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez issued by the Civil Registry Office of the Meanguera Mayor’s Office (evidence file, volume III, attachment 20 to the application, folio 2314), and Birth certificate of Carmelina