2. Right of the girls M., V., and R. to be heard and to have their opinions be taken into consideration Arguments of the parties 193. The Commission noted as “particularly serious in the custody proceedings, the Supreme Court’s failure to take the girls’ preferences and needs into account, in contrast what occurred in the lower courts.” It added that “the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile made no efforts to hear the girls.” 194. The representatives argued that even though “there are procedural mechanisms carefully designed to make sure that children’s views are taken into consideration in the decisions that affect them and that decisions are in fact made in their interest, before that of any other person that intervenes[,] [t]he Supreme Court completely ignored these mechanisms and arbitrarily decided to give greater weight to opinions based on prejudice and stereotypes, to the detriment of the expert opinion of professionals and, even more important, of the girls themselves, unlike the action of the lower-instance courts.” 195. The State indicated that “in the context of considering a mechanism of appeal, such as a remedy of complaint, there is no procedural opportunity to repeat the statements given by the girls, and this is unnecessary based on due process. From the standpoint of the girls’ interest and protection it is counterproductive, as well as unnecessary, to require them to make another statement in the same proceedings regarding their parents’ separation and their desire to live with one of them, thereby increasing their level of victimization.” The State added that “the girls were heard by the lower courts and the Supreme Court had access to these prior statements.” Furthermore, it indicated that, “on the other hand, the principle of recognizing the girls’ autonomy and subjectivity in no case implies, nor can it seek to impose upon them, the final responsibility of deciding their fate. […] When there is conflict between the views and wishes of the boy, girl, or teenager and their “best interest”, [...], and their compatibility is not possible, their interest must necessarily prevail over their wishes, since otherwise the special regimen of protection they enjoy would no longer have a reason to exist.” Considerations of the Court 196. The Court emphasizes that children enjoy the rights established in the American Convention, in addition to the special measures of protection contemplated in Article 19 of the Convention, which must be defined according to the circumstances of each specific case.216 In the instant case, the Court notes that Article 8.1 of the American Convention embodies every person’s the right to be heard, including children, in proceedings in which their rights are determined. This right must be interpreted in light of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,217 which contains appropriate stipulations on the 216 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of February 24, 2011, Series C No. 221, para. 121. 217 Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. 61