-69adoption to another family. “Since there were more than 50 orphanages in the country and in view of the frequent adoptions of children found without their parents or family members, it is reasonable to think that the Serrano [Cruz] sisters were deprived of their name, and could have been given up in adoption or integrated into a home that would take care of them against their will and without the permission of their family.” Today, Ernestina and Erlinda do not know the first and last names they were given by their parents, they have the right to know this and to know they were not abandoned; f) The State made the work of entities such as Pro-Búsqueda very difficult, when they took on the task that should have been carried out by the State. The State has not taken effective measures to allow the disappeared children to recover their identity; g) “The State […] has also violated the right to identity of the children [Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz], by trying to deny their existence before the Court”; and h) They requested the Court to establish the responsibility of the Salvadoran State for not respecting the provisions of Article 18 of the American Convention on Human Rights, “to the detriment of the two children and their next of kin.” 121. With regard to Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the representatives stated: a) In their requests and arguments brief: that the State had not complied with its obligation to provide measures of protection “because it had not taken any measure to return the children and reunite the family.” Likewise, “[t]here is no evidence that the children received the due care (both medical and psychological) and the consequent compensation to which they had a right.” The representatives also stated that the anguish caused to the children, Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz, by not knowing their origins and also by their family and cultural identity crisis, “considered in connection with the State’s obligation to adopt special measures of protection in their favor, result in a violation of the right of the children to expect a life project that should be tended and promoted by the public authorities so that it evolves to their benefit and to the benefit of the society to which they belong”; and b) In their final written arguments: that they “recognized that the Court could only rule on the violation of the right to be subject to measures of special protection in relation to Erlinda Serrano Cruz, who attained her majority after June 6, 1995.” In this regard, they stated that the State has not “presented any record of a State entity showing that the children were handed over” to the Red Cross or to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The State “failed to take any measure to identify and find [the family of Erlinda Serrano Cruz] in order to return her to its bosom.” Arguments of the State 122. With regard to Article 17 of the Convention, the State alleged that: a) The Court must determine whether only the mother of Ernestina and