159. Thus personal identity is very closely linked to the person in his/her specific individuality and private life, both sustained by a historical and biological experience, as well as how this individual relates to others, on the basis of the development of family and social ties.273 Likewise, it is important to stress that, although identity is of the utmost importance during childhood, because it is essential for the development of the person, it is no less true that the right to identity is not a right exclusively for children, because it is constantly being built and the interest of persons in keeping their identity and upholding it does not decline because of age.274 160. As for the right to a name, the Court has established that it "constitutes a basic and indispensable element of the identity of each person.”275 In that regard, said Court has pointed out that "States must ensure that every person is registered under the name that his or her parents have chosen, whenever the registration takes place, without any type of restriction to the right or interference in the decision to choose the name.276 Once a person is registered, the possibility of preserving and re-establishing the given name and surname must be ensured.277 The given name and surname are essential to establish formally the connection between the different members of the family.”278 161. As for the European Court of Human Rights, it has constantly pointed out that Article 8 of the European Convention "protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.” Thus, private life includes aspects of the "social and physical identity of the individual.”279 The European Court has indicated that one of the components of the right to identity is the right to information about one's biological truth. Regarding this, it has indicated that a wide interpretation of the scope of the notion of private life also involves recognizing the right of all persons to "know their origins." Regarding this aspect, the European Court has pointed out that people "have a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to know and to understand their childhood and early development.”280 2. Application of the above-mentioned standards to the case at hand 162. Bearing in mind what has been said up to now, the Commission shall now focus on examining whether or not, in the present case, the State fulfilled its international obligations under the American Convention, which must be interpreted in line with the standards described until now which endow concrete content to its provisions, in particular, the right of the child to special protection and the best interests of the child principle. In that regard, IACHR shall examine whether or not, in the proceedings of the judicial declaration of abandonment of the Ramírez brothers, in the appeal for review in the adoption proceedings, and in the continued appeals for review, state authorities acted with due diligence to ensure that 273I/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. 123. 274 Inter-American Juridical Committee, Opinion on the scope of the right to identity, August 10, 2007, second resolving clause. 275 I/A Court H.R. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 110; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 182. 276I/A Court H.R. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 110. 277I/A Court H.R. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 110. 278 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 184; and Case of the "Las Dos Erres" Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 192. 279 ECHR, Case of Bensaid v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 6 February 2001, para. 47; Case of Pretty v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 29 April 2002, para. 61; and Case of Peck v. United Kingdom , Judgment of 28 January 2003, para. 57. 280ECHR, Case of Odièvre v. France, Judgment of 13 February 2003, paras. 42 and 44; and Case of Mikulić v. Croatia, Judgment of 7 February 2002, paras. 57 and 64. 34