54 cases, the absence of a criminal investigation was deemed sufficient reason to dismiss the habeas corpus action. Furthermore, the individuals offered as witnesses, or those individuals identified in positions of command, in each of the habeas corpus applications, were not summoned to testify (supra paras. 58, 67, 73 and 84). 167. The Court has found that the Constitutional Chamber imposed a disproportionate burden of proof on the plaintiffs, given the lack of diligence in the procedural actions aimed at gathering all the evidence offered and taking into account the broad powers of the executing judge which, together with the military authorities’ refusal to provide information, rendered the remedy ineffective. This is also reflected in the failure to take into account the systematic pattern of forced disappearances of children during the armed conflict and the fact that the authorities of the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defense systematically denied the judicial authorities and the Public Prosecution Service information and access to the military archives and files.276 Moreover, they denied the very existence of operations in cases of this nature, even though newspaper reports that are public knowledge, some of which were provided as evidence in this case, showed that these operations did indeed take place and even provided names, at least, of the individuals in command.277 168. The Court acknowledges that the State enumerated several advances in terms of the rulings issued in habeas corpus proceedings related to cases of forced disappearance of persons. Specifically, the State indicated that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court had modified its case law criteria, concluding that habeas corpus is an “appropriate” mechanism for examining cases of forced disappearance and that it currently accepts different means of providing proof of the subject of the proceeding.278 Although these changes in case law represent judicial progress for the protection of disappeared persons and their next of kin, the measures were not sufficient in this case to address the ineffectiveness that has characterized the proceedings related to forced disappearances during the armed conflict. 169. Therefore, the Court decides that the attempted habeas corpus proceedings were not effective for determining the whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and failed to acknowledge the constitutional violation of their right to physical liberty; moreover, these proceedings did not exhort the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic to take the necessary measures, in accordance with its constitutional powers, and therefore the protection afforded through the aforesaid proceedings was illusory. Consequently, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7(6) of the American Convention, to the detriment of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and of their next of kin. D. Conclusion 170. More than 30 years have elapsed since the forced disappearances of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, without any of the perpetrators or masterminds having been identified and brought to trial, and without the full truth of the facts or the children’s whereabouts being known. Thus, a situation of total impunity prevails. Therefore, in the instant case, the State has still not satisfied the 276 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 169. See press reports describing the operations related to these cases (evidence file, volume V, annex 30 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence). 277 Among others, the State mentioned the rulings issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of El Salvador in habeas corpus proceedings No. 379-2000 and 378-2000 on March 20 and 21, 2002, and in habeas corpus proceeding 203/204/205-2007 on February 24, 2010. 278