49 150. The Court finds that the investigations conducted have not taken into account the context of the facts, their complexity, the patterns that explain how they were perpetrated, the complex network of people involved, or the special position within the State structure, at that time, of the individuals who could be responsible. On this point, the Court has found that in events such as those alleged in this case, given their context and complexity, it is reasonable to consider that there are different degrees of responsibility at different levels.252 However, this is not reflected in the investigations. Consequently, the authorities in charge of the investigations do not appear to have followed clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken those elements into account. Furthermore, obvious omissions can be observed in the gathering of evidence. Thus, the Court considers that the State has not acted diligently with respect to this obligation. 151. As to the steps taken to determine the possible whereabouts of the disappeared victims, although certain actions were carried out by the National Search Commission and some procedures were carried out by the Attorney General’s Office, the State has not provided any information to show that it has exhausted all possible efforts to determine the whereabouts of the victims, according to the set of possible effective procedures in response to the modus operandi concerning the disappearance of children during the armed conflict, which were specified in the Case of Contreras et al.253 The Court notes that, parallel to the investigations carried out by those in charge of the criminal prosecution, the National Search Commission is currently conducting inquiries in the context of its powers to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared victims (supra para. 60). From the evidence in the file, the Court infers that there is a lack of coordination between these two State bodies, which is required to achieve greater efficacy in the investigations. 152. The Court finds that the situation confirmed in this case coincides with what was determined opportunely with respect to the investigations conducted in the cases of the Serrano Cruz Sisters and Contreras et al., in which the investigative authority failed to take diligent and exhaustive measures to gather evidence, creating a situation of impunity.254 153. For its part, based on its experience in these cases, the Search Association has identified (supra para. 49), the following obstacles that cut across the investigations related to disappeared children: a) failure to carry out procedures such as interviews with key witnesses identified from the start of the investigations; b) no requests for information have been made or investigative powers used to require State institutions to provide relevant information in their power; c) rotation of assistant prosecutors, which hinders the continuity of the proceedings and a clear investigation strategy.255 154. The Court finds that, in the cases it has examined, there has not been a serious and decisive investigation strategy leading to the identification and prosecution of the presumed perpetrators. On this point, in cases such as this, the Court has considered that the authorities in charge of the investigation have an obligation to ensure that in the course of their inquiries they assess the 252 194. 253 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 203, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 152. Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 89 to 98 and 105 to 106, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, paras. 147 to 155 and 168 to 169. 254 Cf. Letter of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda addressed to the Attorney General of the Republic on February 22, 2013 (evidence file, volume V, annex 12 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2312 to 2313). See also, Letter of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda addressed to the Commission of Justice and Human Rights of the Legislative Assembly, dated December 3, 2010 (evidence file, volume V, annex 33 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 2451 to 2467). 255