24 136. After the writ was filed, an executing judge was appointed to expedite the process. 137. In the case of Ricardo Ayala Abarca, this judicial authority made an inquiry of Chief of the High Command, who told him “that on reviewing the archives of this agency, and of the various military units, no records or information appears related to the possible restriction or deprivation of liberty of the 117 beneficiary, in the place and date mentioned in the request or on other dates and places.” 138. By resolution of March 6, 2003, notice of which was given on June 6, 2003, the habeas corpus proceeding was dismissed. The Constitutional Chamber held that no minimum indicium was produced to generate the conviction that the disappearance occurred. The Chamber also held that this judgment is not res judicata and, therefore, if new facts are produced, it is possible to file a new writ of 118 habeas corpus. 139. In the case of Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio, the executing judge made an inquiry of the Chief of the High Command, who stated “that on reviewing the archives of that agency, and of the various military units, no records or information appear related to the possible restriction or deprivation of liberty of the minor Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio, in the place and date mentioned in the request or on other dates or places.” It was also indicated that “Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio is not restricted in his ambulatory liberty in any of the units that make up the Armed Forces, and there are no investigations or orders issued by the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces or by other military authorities with respect to the minor Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio.” The executing judge reported that the Minister of Defense answered in the same terms, and that he went to the Fifth Brigade, where they did not have 119 any information with respect to the case. 140. The habeas corpus proceeding was dismissed by resolution of May 26, 2003, notice of which was given on June 6, 2003. The Constitutional Chamber held that no minimum indicium was produced to give rise to the conviction that the disappearance occurred. The Chamber also held that this judgment is not res judicata, and, therefore, if new information is produced, it is possible to file a new writ 120 of habeas corpus. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 141. Based on the facts that have been considered proven, and taking into consideration the context of an internal armed conflict in which they unfolded, the Commission will undertake its legal analysis in the instant case in the following order: (i) Characterization of the appropriation of children as a form of forced disappearance; (ii) The rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, and the recognition of juridical personality; (iii) The rights to a family, a name, and special protection for children; (iv) The rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection; and (v) the right to humane treatment with respect to next-of-kin. A. Characterization of the appropriation of children as a form of forced disappearance 142. The consistent case-law of the organs of the inter-American system in cases of forced disappearance of persons has indicated that this phenomenon constitutes an unlawful act that gives rise to the multiple and continuing violation of several rights protected by the American Convention and it places the victim in a completely defenseless state, entailing other related offenses. The international responsibility of the State is aggravated when the disappearance is part of a systematic pattern or 117 Annex xx. Judgment of Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, March 6, 2003. 118 Annex xx. Judgment of Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, March 6, 2003. 119 Annex xx. Judgment of Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, May 26, 2003. 120 Annex xx. Judgment of Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, May 26, 2003.