105 proceedings, those regulations make no provision for a specialized jurisdiction for juvenile offenders. So no specific forum was established in Paraguay for children in conflict with the law until Policy Decision No. 214 of May 18, 2001, which regulates the functions of the judges in juvenile trial and sentencing court (supra para. 134.57); nor was any special procedure established that would be appropriate for questioning children in conflict with the law. 209. The guarantees set forth in Articles 8 of the Convention are equally recognized for all persons, and must be correlated with the specific rights established in Article 19 in such a way that they are reflected in any administrative or judicial proceedings where the rights of a child are discussed.180 While procedural rights and their corollary guarantees apply to all persons, in the case of children exercise of those rights requires, due to the special condition of minors, that certain specific measures be adopted for them to effectively enjoy those rights and guarantees.181 210. This Court has held that one obvious consequence of the importance of handling matters that pertain to children differently, and specifically those matters having to do with some unlawful behavior, is the establishment of specialized jurisdictional bodies to hear cases involving conduct defined as crimes and attributable to juveniles.182 The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that States shall seek to promote “the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law.”183 211. According to the relevant international standards on the subject, the special jurisdiction for children in conflict with the law in Paraguay, and its related laws and procedures should feature, inter alia, the following: 1) first, the system should be able to provide measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings;184 2) should judicial proceedings be necessary, the juvenile court should be able to order a variety of measures, such as psychological counseling for the child while on trial, control over the way the child’s testimony is taken, and regulation of the public nature of the proceedings; 3) it should also have a sufficient margin of discretion at all stages of the proceedings and at the different levels of juvenile justice administration185; and 4) those who exercise discretion should be specially qualified or trained in the human rights of the child and child psychology to avoid any abuse of the discretionary authority and to ensure that the measures ordered in any case are appropriate and proportionate.186 212. Those elements, whose purpose is to recognize the child’s general vulnerability vis-à-vis judicial proceedings and the greater impact that the 180 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 150, para. 95 181 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 150, para. 98. 182 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 150, para. 109. 183 Article 40.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 184 Cf. Article 40.3.b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 185 Cf. Rule 6.1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/33 of 28 November 1985. 186 Cf. Rule 6.3 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/33 of 28 November 1985; and Article 40.4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.