139. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the right to liberty in this context also entails the liberty of every person to decide upon aspects affecting his/her life and the exercise of his/her rights, the Commission has stressed that states have the obligation to guarantee that residential institutions meet the conditions that are needed for children to fulfill their own plans for life.246 Thus, when children do not benefit from any level of decision making for themselves, especially in connection with the exercise of their rights or actions that affect them directly, they are not being allowed to develop their own autonomy, personality, and plans for life.247 1.2. Right to family 140. Article 17.1 of the American Convention provides that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” As for Article 11.2 of the same instrument, it points out that “[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family (…).” 141. The Court has indicated that the right to protection of the family, recognized in both provisions, leads to promoting, in the broadest fashion possible, the development and strength of the family unit.248 In that regard, the Commission stresses that one of the most severest interferences of the state is that which leads to the breakup of the family. 142. That is why children have the right to live with their family, which is called upon to meet their material, emotional, and psychological needs.249 Thus, the mutual enjoyment of peaceful coexistence between parents and children constitutes a key element in family life.250 Because of this, the Commission emphasizes the need for states to adopt the necessary protection measures that do not entail the removal of a child from his/her parents.251 143. That said, the Commission and the Court have stressed that, because of this, children must stay in their nuclear family, unless there are decisive reasons, on the basis of the children's best interests, to opt for separating them from their family.252 In this case, the separation must be exceptional and preferably temporary.253 Otherwise, the separation of a child from his/her family may constitute a breach of his/her 246 IACHR, The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative Care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. October 17, 2013, para. 587. 247 IACHR, The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative Care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. October 17, 2013, para. 587. 248I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 169; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 157; and Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66. 249I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 242, para. 46; and Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 67 and 71. 250 I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 242, para. 47. 251 IACHR, The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative Care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. October 17, 2013, para. 281. 252 I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 242, para. 47. 253 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 72, 75 and 77. 28