-70Erlinda Serrano Cruz should be considered the alleged victim of the violation of the said article, “or whether it should be considered that their siblings were also affected.” In this regard, the most usual rule is to decide that it is the heirs who have a right to compensation. The presumption that the siblings of the children, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, suffered owing to their disappearance, is invalidated by the declarations of Suyapa Serrano Cruz during the public hearings before the Inter-American Commission; b) “In relation to the way in which the alleged facts affected the siblings [of Ernestina and Erlinda], the State indicates that Enrique Serrano Cruz has already died” and that, presumably, Oscar Serrano Cruz had not been born, because he is not mentioned when the facts allegedly occurred. The situation of the siblings, Martha, Arnulfo, Rosa and Fernando is different; Suyapa Serrano Cruz does not mention that they were affected by the alleged facts. In addition, these siblings “[did not] appear before the domestic proceedings, nor have they carried out any action that would suggest that they were affected.” Consequently, the Court should not consider the siblings Fernando, Enrique (deceased), Martha, Arnulfo, Oscar and Rosa Serrano Cruz to be next of kin affected by the disputed facts; c) When the Court is asked to expand the concept of the family according to the customs, traditions and de facto circumstances of the community, the Commission and the representatives must prove that the alleged facts caused prejudice to this community; d) “The sisters [Ernestina and Erlinda] were left abandoned in a combat zone; […] gathering up two children and handing them over to the ICRC or to the Red Cross implied complying with a positive obligation established by humanitarian law, and does not contradict the provisions of article 38(4) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child”; e) The reunification of the Serrano Cruz family was not possible for unknown causes that cannot be attributed to the State. 123. With regard to Article 18 of the Convention the State indicated that: a) The alleged victims’ mother registered them on April 27, 1993, under the provisions of the Special Transitory Act to establish the civil status of undocumented persons affected by the conflict. “[T]he children were registered by their parents after their alleged disappearance, thus [the parents] failed to comply with the positive obligation established by Article 18 of the American Convention”; b) It made inquiries “about the existence of the ‘baptismal certificates’ of both children in local churches and neighboring sectors, without success. In this regard, it requested the prosecutor to investigate whether the baptismal certificates existed. Likewise, close relatives were consulted and also neighbors of the alleged victims’ mother, but none of those interviewed recalled the existence of the victims before the conflict, even though they recall the names of her other children”; c) It has not been proved that the State violated Article 18 of the Convention, in the sense of having deprived the Serrano Cruz sisters of their