90. It has been proved that, in this case, at least one girl and three boys163 were victims of forced disappearance. The State had the obligation to protect the civilian population in the context of the Guatemalan internal armed conflict and, especially the children, who were in a situation of greater vulnerability and risk that their rights would be violated. However, in this case it has been verified that the military acted completely illegally and used the State’s structures to perpetrate the forced disappearance of children, through the systematic nature of the repression to which certain sectors of the population were subjected. In addition, these forced disappearances, perpetrated by State agents, impacted and continue to impact many families. 91. Additionally, the victims, Rolando Hernández Arévalo and Carmelino Ajanel Ramos, who were children at the time of the continued family separation described in the previous section and, also, when the Court’s temporal jurisdiction entered into force, had their right to the protection of the family violated; moreover, this had a differentiated impact of them because they were children separated from their parents. The Court recalls that the family to which all children have a rights is, above all, their biological family, including the closest family members who should protect them; at the same time, they should be the principal subject of State measures of protection. 164 92. Furthermore, due protection of the rights of children as subjects of rights should take into consideration their inherent characteristics and the need to contribute to their development, offering them the necessary conditions to live and develop their aptitudes in order to fully exploit their potential,165 and this did not happen in the instant case, where the State remained indifferent to the situation of the children who were victims of numerous violations derived from the massacre that took place on April 28 and 29, 1982. 93. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the children Norma Morales Alonzo, Victoriano Salvatierra Morales, Antonio Santos Serech and Joselino García Sermeño, and also Rolando Hernández Arévalo and Carmelino Ajanel Ramos. VIII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION166 94. In this chapter, the Court will analyze specifically the alleged deficiencies in the investigations and proceedings instituted as a result of the massacre of the village of Los Josefinos on April 28 and 29, 1982, in alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court will make its analysis within the framework of its temporal jurisdiction in this case; that is, as of March 9, 1987. A. 95. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission The Commission noted that the facts of this case occurred in a prevailing context of relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. Sub-paragraph B. Reunion of families, para. 4553. Namely, the children Norma Morales Alonzo, Victoriano Salvatierra Morales, Antonio Santos Serech and Joselino García Sermeño. 163 Cf. Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 104, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 163. 164 Cf. Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra para. 106, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 150. 165 166 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 30