51 the effects persist until the fate or whereabouts of the victims is known and their identity is determined, the State must “refrain from resorting to mechanisms such as amnesty for the perpetrators, or any other similar exclusion of responsibility.”259 Likewise, it is important to recall that the Court has already assessed the content and scope of the Legislative Decree Nº 486 “General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of Peace” in the Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, and in its judgment has determined that, “given its manifest incompatibility with the American Convention, the provisions of the General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of Peace that impede the investigation and punishment of the serious human rights violations that occurred in [that] case lack legal effects and, therefore, cannot continue to hinder the investigation of [those] facts […] and the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible, nor can they have equal or similar impact with respect to other cases of serious human rights violations recognized in the American Convention that may have occurred during the armed conflict in El Salvador.”260 159. In brief, it was the responsibility of the authorities in charge of pursuing the investigations to channel them correctly and in a timely manner from the outset in order to establish the identity of those responsible for the disappearances, and to determine the fate or whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, based on the context in which they took place. 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 inquiries to advance, or to determine coherent lines of investigation. In addition, it should be emphasized 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. In the Court’s opinion, this has compromised their seriousness and due diligence, since with the passage of time, the possibility of collecting and presenting pertinent evidence that would clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities has been unjustifiably affected. 160. The Court notes that more than 30 years have elapsed since the events took place and 12 years have passed since the first investigation was opened, yet the criminal proceedings remain in their initial stages, and those responsible have not been individualized, prosecuted or punished. This greatly exceeds the term that could be considered reasonable for such purposes. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has not conducted serious, diligent and exhaustive investigations, within a reasonable time, into the facts surrounding the forced disappearances of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. 161. In light of these considerations and of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with the requirements of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, 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. C. Habeas corpus proceedings 162. The Court recalls that Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention encompass different spheres of protection. Article 7(6) of the Convention 261 has its own juridical content, consisting of the direct Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 172, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 185(d). 259 260 Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 296. Article 7(6) of the Convention establishes that: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide, without delay, on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order 261