45 the victims or to open an effective investigation to elucidate what happened causes increased suffering to the next of kin.183 The circumstances of this case reveal that the suffering of the three families affected by the disappearance of one or more of their children was exacerbated by the withholding of the truth about what happened and the whereabouts of the victims, and by the lack of collaboration from the State authorities to establish that truth, which consequently aggravated the violation of the next of kin’s right to personal integrity. 124. Based on all these considerations and in view of the State’s acknowledgment responsibility, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Maura Contreras (mother), Fermín Recinos Ayala (father), Julia Gregoria Recinos Contreras (sister), Marta Daysi Leiva Contreras (sister), Nelson Contreras (brother, deceased), Rubén de Jesús López Contreras (brother), Sara Margarita López Contreras (sister), Santos Antonio López Contreras (brother); Arcadia Ramírez Portillo (mother), Avenicio Portillo (brother), María Nely Portillo (sister), Santos Verónica Portillo (sister), Reina Dionila Portillo de Silva (aunt); Margarita de Dolores Rivera de Rivera (mother), Agustín Antonio Rivera Gálvez (father), Juan Carlos Rivera (brother, deceased), Agustín Antonio Rivera (brother), José Daniel Rivera Rivera (brother), Milton Rivera Rivera (brother), Irma Cecilia Rivera Rivera (sister) and Cándida Marisol Rivera Rivera (sister). VIII RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, JUDICIAL PROTECTION, AND FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS 125. In this chapter, the Court will examine the various proceedings initiated following the forced disappearances of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, and José Rubén Rivera Rivera in order to determine if, taken as a whole, they have constituted an effective remedy to ensure the rights of the victims and their next of kin to access to justice, to know the truth, and to reparation. In this regard, the Court notes that three types of proceedings were initiated in El Salvador: investigations into human rights violations before the Ombudsman’s Office; criminal investigations before the Public Prosecution Service and judicial authorities, and constitutional proceedings for habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. To this end, the Court finds it pertinent, first, to recall the grounds for the obligation to investigate the facts of the forced disappearance and to emphasize their specific elements as these are facts that took place in the context of a systematic pattern of violations with regard to children. Subsequently, the Court will address the legal and factual obstacles that have impeded compliance, giving rise to a situation of impunity. A. The obligation to investigate in cases of the forced disappearance of children that form part of a systematic pattern 126. First, it is pertinent to recall that the systematic practice of forced disappearance supposes a disregard for the obligation to organize the State apparatus so that it guarantees the rights recognized in the Convention; this creates the situation of impunity, allowing this 183 Cf. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 133, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 241.