their family units.143 b.3. Rights of the family 84. The rights that may be violated by situations of forced displacement include the rights of the family recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention, and also the rights of the child, pursuant to Article 19 of this treaty. The former article recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.144 The Court has established that the State is obliged to encourage the development and strengthening of the family unit 145 and that the separation of children from their family constitutes, in certain circumstances, a violation of the rights of the family. Therefore, children have the right to live with their family, which is called on to meet their physical, emotional and psychological needs. 146 The Court understands that, in situations of forced displacement, the State has the obligation to seek family reunification, especially in cases of families with children.147 This duty concerning the rights of the family and the rights of the child, is independent from others that are also pertinent in situations of forced displacement, such as that of making a safe return possible. According to the circumstances of the case, this does not preclude measures to make a safe return possible being appropriate to achieve family reunification. Consequently, in cases of forced displacement, the Court has considered that, because this entails the separation or fragmentation of the family unit, it may result in the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 17 of the Convention and also, if applicable, of its Article 19 in relation to the children affected by this situation.148 85. In the instant case, the Court notes that Elvira Arévalo Sandoval lost four of her nine children during her flight at the time of the massacre. It was only seven years later that she found out that one of them,149 Rigoberto (one year old at the time of the massacre), had died in the forest, while the other three, Ernestina, Romelia and Rolando (aged 14, 13 and 2 years at the time of the massacre) had taken refuge in Mexico, where they remained separated from their mother, believing According to the list provided by the Commission and the representatives, and as the Court has been able to verify, the family unit of María Fidelia Quevedo Bolaños consisted of: Lilian Judith Pérez Quevedo, Sandra Margarita Pérez Quevedo, Rosa Lina Pérez Quevedo, Marta Leonor Pérez Quevedo and Filadelfo Arturo Pérez Quevedo; the family unit of Antonio Ajanel Ortíz consisted of: Carmelino Ajanel Ramos; the family unit of Alba Maritza López Mejía consisted of: Maria del Carmen Mejía Pérez de López, Amildo Antonio López Mejía, Alejandra López, Agustín de Jesús López Mejía, Rosa Alvina (Albina) López Mejía, and her brother José Álvaro López Mejía who was a victim of forced disappearance, as declared by the Court in section b.1) of this chapter. Also, the family unit of Elidea Hernández Rodríguez consisted of: Mario Adolfo Alcántara, Tito Asai Alcántara Hernández, Adolfo Lemuel Alcántara Hernández, Anestor [Noé] Alcántara Hernández and Damaris Noemí Alcántara Hernández; the family unit of Sotero Chávez consisted of: Anselma Carrillo Díaz de Chavez, Apolinio Carrillo, Miguel Carrillo Díaz, Natalia Chávez Carillo, Otilia Chávez Carillo, Romeo Chávez Carillo, Daniel Chávez Carillo, Deisy Francisca Chávez Carrillo, José Luis Chávez Carrillo, Jorge Alberto Chávez Carrillo, Antonio Chávez Carillo, Cecilia Chávez Carillo, Marta Chávez Carrillo, Salomón Carrillo Gudiel and Roberto Carrillo Gudiel; the family unit of Juana Leonidas García Castellanos consisted of: Manuel Regalado Nuñez, Ana Mirian Regalado García, Elmin Edel Regalado García, Silvia Elizabeth Reglado García, Byron (Biron) Manuel Regalado García, Jaime San Regalado García, Bermina Llaneth [Janneth] Regalado García, Argentina Regalado García and Eulicer Regalado García, and the family unit of Zoila Reyes Pineda consisted of: Raúl Amadeo Pineda Reyes and Zoila Aida Pineda Reyes. 143 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 191. 144 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 66, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 414. 145 Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 7, and Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, para. 246. 146 Cf. Principle 17 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 of February 11, 1998, p.5. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G98/104/93/PDF/G9810493.pdf?OpenElement 147 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 163, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 281 148 149 Cf. Statement made by Elvira Arévalos Sandoval on September 29, 2004 (evidence file, folio 6200). 27