42 actions lacked any diligence and was limited to normal treatment, as if it were a deprivation of liberty in normal circumstances. The measures ordered to search for the children through the habeas corpus actions did not take into consideration that the facts alleged unfolded in a context in which a systematic pattern of disappearance of children was shown, such that the search measures would answer to the particularities of such contexts. In the five cases, the motivation of the dismissals of the habeas corpus actions is so laconic that one can infer from it the ineffectiveness of this remedy in practice. 231. In addition, the Commission considers extremely serious the time that has elapsed since the State learned of the facts – no later than May 1996 – without having ordered an adequate and diligent investigation of the facts. Moreover, the Commission does not have any information indicating the reasons why the State has not ordered the reactivation of the investigations after its recognition of international responsibility before the IACHR. The passage of time helps perpetuate impunity, for it has the inevitable effect of reducing the prospects of locating truthful witnesses and evidence useful for establishing what happened and punishing those responsible. The Commission understands that the forced disappearance of persons is a phenomenon whose complexity may entail a delay in the investigations. Nonetheless, in the instant case the Commission observes that the delays in the processes have not been the result of the nature of the matter or of especially complex investigative measures. To the contrary, the information available indicates that the lack of results in the process has been due to the generalized inactivity on the part of the authorities in charge of the investigation. 232. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the Salvadoran State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla, and Ricardo Ayala Abarca, as well as the next-of-kin identified to date, Alfonso Hernández, Sebastián Rochac Hernández, Estanislao Rochac Hernández, Maria Juliana Rochac Hernández, María del Tránsito Rochac Hernández, Ana Margarita Rochac Hernández, Nicolas Alfonso Rochac Hernández, María Adela Iraheta (deceased in 2005), Amparo Salinas, Estela Salinas, Josefina Salinas, Julio Iraheta, Felipe Flores Iraheta, María Adela Hernández, Juan de la Cruz Sánchez (deceased), Joel Alcides Hernández, Valentina Hernández, Santiago Perez, Juan Evangelista, José Cristino Hernández, Eligorio Hernández, Rosa Ofelia Hernández, José de la Paz Bonilla, María de los Ángeles Osorio, Petrolina Abarca Alvarado, José Arístides Bonilla, María Inés Bonilla, María Josefa Rosales, María Esperanza Alvarado, Luis Alberto Alvarado, Ester Ayala Abarca, Paula Alvarado, Daniel Abarca, José Humberto Abarca,Osmín Abarca y Manuel Eugenio Salinas.. E. The right to humane treatment with respect to the next-of-kin (Article 5 of the Convention) 233. As the Court has indicated on repeated occasions, the next-of-kin of the victims of human 184 rights violations may, in turn, be victims. In several cases, the Inter-American Court has considered the mental and moral integrity of victims’ next-of-kin to be violated “in light of the additional suffering experienced as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the violations committed against their loved ones and of the subsequent acts or omissions by State authorities with respect to the incidents at 185 issue.” 234. Specifically, in cases of forced disappearance, the Court has indicated that it is possible to understand that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim’s next-of-kin is a direct consequence precisely of that phenomenon, which causes them severe suffering because of the act itself, which is compounded, among other factors, by the constant refusal of the state authorities to 184 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153. Para. 96; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149. Para. 156; and I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141. Para. 119. 185 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136. Para. 60; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134. Paras. 144 and 146.