-58diligently as possible in order to determine the facts and establish the corresponding responsibilities and reparations, avoiding delays and omissions when requesting evidence. The criminal proceedings concerning what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, which have remained at the investigation stage, were processed under the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the judge shared the obligation to advance the investigation of crimes with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 89. In its decision of March 14, 1996, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the habeas corpus procedure and “forward[ed this decision] to the Chalatenango Trial Judge, together with case 112/93, so that she c[ould] continue investigating the reported facts” and then inform the Chamber. Nevertheless, the Court has observed that, according to the file of the criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court, there is no evidence that this court informed the Constitutional Chamber about the investigations it conducted. In addition, this court did not take into consideration the information that appeared in the file of the habeas corpus procedure to make inquiries in the places where the Red Cross took 52 children, aged from new-born to 12 years old, found in Chalatenango in June 1982 (supra para. 48(18)), and did not attempt to summon the soldiers mentioned by the alleged victims’ mother (supra para. 48(50)). The court even summoned someone to testify who was deceased, as the alleged victims’ mother had indicated in the habeas corpus procedure (supra para. 48(29)). 90. The Court has observed that approximately two years and one month after the reopening of the criminal proceeding (supra para. 48(23)), it was filed by a decision of May 27, 1998 (supra para. 48(25)), because the proceedings [had been] sufficient investigated” and “the person or persons who [had] abducted the children” had not been identified, even though, during the two years of investigation, the prosecutor and the judge had assumed a passive attitude in the investigation and left the procedural initiative rest with the alleged victims’ mother (supra para. 48(28) and 48(30)). 91. The Court has confirmed that neither the habeas corpus procedure nor the criminal proceedings took into account the characteristics of the reported facts, the situation of armed conflict affecting El Salvador at the time the facts under investigation allegedly occurred, or the different situations in which people who disappeared during the armed conflict when they were children have been found (supra para. 48(6)). For example, even though many children who entered children’s homes and orphanages during the armed conflict and who lacked identity documents were registered in the mayors’ offices with other first and last names (supra para. 48(11)), the judges and prosecutors did not take this fact into consideration when investigating the whereabouts of the alleged victims and requesting information from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Salvadoran Red Cross, a hospital, the Armed Forces, and the Attorney General’s office, but based their inquiries and requests on the first and last names of the alleged victims (supra para. 48(18), 48(36), 48(37), 48(38), 48(40), 48(41), 48(42), 48(49) and 48(61)). 92. Several times, when requesting information, the Chalatenango Trial Court was satisfied with very limited information provided in response. Indeed, on one occasion, it requested information for June 1982 from a hospital and when the hospital director replied with information for July 1982, it failed to make another request for the information for June 1982 (supra para. 48(37)).