54 be conducted taking into account the complexity of this type of facts, which took place in the context of the Armed Force’s counterinsurgency operations, and also the structure in which those who were probably involved were situated; thereby avoiding omissions in the collection of evidence and in following logical lines of investigation.236 147. However, when analyzing the effectiveness of the investigations that were conducted, the Court takes into account the systematic pattern of forced disappearances of children perpetrated in the context of the Salvadoran armed conflict and the information on the possible subsequent fate of the children (supra paras. 54 and 55), which should also have been considered by the authorities in charge of the investigation. To this end, first the Court will refer to all the measures taken to establish the corresponding criminal responsibilities and, then the measures taken to discover the whereabouts of the victims. 148. First, the evidence in this case reveals that, even though the testimony of some witnesses was received, inspections were made to locate the next of kin, and official letters were sent to the authorities of the Armed Forces and to the Minister of Defense, which indicates that although the authorities responsible for the investigations conducted some investigative actions, they did not exhaust all the measures that should have been taken to identify the possible authors of the facts and, as appropriate, bring charges against them. 149. Thus, no measures were taken to inspect newspaper archives in which information could possibly have been obtained on the individuals who participated in the military operations that were conducted in the place and at the time of the facts;237 and the investigations did not incorporate the corresponding sections of the Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, which give the names of some of the soldiers who took part in the operations.238 Similarly, the conclusions reached by the Ombudsman’s Office and the evidence contributed to the investigations indicated the military units that supposedly participated in the operations and identified the names of some of the authorities in charge of them.239 Yet that information was not used in any line of investigation, and no member of the Armed Forces was charged or called to testify. In other words, none of the investigations pursued tried to obtain more evidence to confirm or disprove the responsibility of the individuals accused. The only measure that an attempted in this regard was in judicial case 479-3-96, in which, on July 27, 2009, the prosecutor assigned to the case tried unsuccessfully to summon an individual who had been in command of the Fifth Infantry Brigade to testify “as a witness.”240 150. The Court finds that the investigations pursued have not taken into account the 236 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz sisters, supra note 29, paras. 88 and 105; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 166, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 25, para. 206. 237 For example, expert witness Iglesias stated that, at the time of the forced disappearances in this case, “[t]he Armed Forces used and had what they called the Armed Forces Press Committee (COPRESA), which prepared very clear reports on where operations were being carried out and who the officers in charge were. They published this and sent it as press releases and […] even the newspapers published it. So there is information.” Expert opinion given by Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at the public hearing held on May 17, 2011. See also, newspaper articles which describe the occurrence of operations relating to these cases (evidence file, volume V, attachment 21 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 3757 to 3774). 238 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, supra note 28, (evidence file, volume III, attachment 3 to the application, folios 2011 to 2018 and 2023). 239 Cf. Decision issued by the Ombudsman’s Office, supra note 70 (evidence file, volume III, attachment 15 to the application, folio 2208), and File 225-UDVSV-00, supra note 215, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 5 to the answer to the application, folio 7442). 240 Cf. File 225-UDVSV-00, supra note 215, (evidence file, volume X, attachment 5 to the answer to the application, folios 7228 to 7229, 7232 to 7234, 7237 to 7241 and 7155 to 7156).