56 153. In brief, it was the responsibility of the authorities in charge of pursuing the investigations to channel them correctly and opportunely from the outset in order to establish the identity of those responsible for the disappearances, as well as to determine the fate or the whereabouts of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, based on the context in which they took place. Meanwhile, it was the search activities of a non-governmental organization that made it possible to locate Gregoria Herminia Contreras. In the Court’s opinion, the actions of the authorities in charge of pursuing the investigations have not been exhaustive and have not allowed the investigation to advance, or to determine coherent lines of investigation. In addition, it should be stressed that, during their initial stages, the domestic investigations were plagued by long periods of inactivity due to the absence of procedural activity ex officio by the body responsible for the investigation and the closure of the cases decided by the judicial authorities which, in the Court���s opinion, impaired their seriousness and due diligence. Also, the Court considers that, in this case, as a result of the prolonged inactivity during certain periods of the investigation and the lack of diligence, as time has passed, the possibility of collecting and presenting pertinent evidence that would clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities has been unjustifiably affected. Moreover, no investigations have been opened on all the facts surrounding the disappearance of Gregoria Herminia Contreras. 154. The Court observes that, in this case, several investigations have been opened on the same facts and victims. In this regard, it is not clear that the number of parallel case files has benefited the development and effectiveness of the investigations. On the contrary, the progress of the investigations could have been hindered by the existence of fragmented parallel investigations or duplication of resources. 155. All things considered, in this case the use of State power as a means and resource for committing the violations of rights that should have been respected and guaranteed has been verified.247 This has encouraged situations of impunity for these grave violations, promoted and tolerated by all the investigations, which have been neither coherent with each other nor sufficient to clarify the facts. Consequently, they have not complied satisfactorily with the obligation to investigate forced disappearances of the then children effectively. The Court observes that approximately 30 years after the start of the facts and 16 years after the first investigations were opened, the criminal proceedings remain in their initial stages without having individualized, prosecuted, and eventually punished any of those responsible; this has surpassed excessively the time that could be considered reasonable in this regard. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has not conducted serious, diligent and exhaustive investigations, within a reasonable time, into the facts concerning the forced disappearances of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras and José Rubén Rivera Rivera. In light of these considerations and of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with the requirements of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Mejía Ramírez, Contreras and Rivera children and of their next of kin. D. Habeas Corpus proceedings 156. The Commission stressed that, even though the decisions in the three habeas corpus proceedings filed on behalf of José Rubén Rivera Rivera, the Mejía Ramírez sisters and the 247 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 107, para. 66; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 14, para. 125, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 149.