32 121. In addition, the Inter-American Court has found, “the special vulnerability of boys and girls due to their condition as such becomes even more evident in a situation of domestic armed conflict, as in the instant case, since they are least prepared to adapt or respond to said situation and, sadly, it is they who suffer its abuse in a disproportionate manner.” 132 122. The Inter-American Court has referred in its case-law to the corpus juris on the human rights of children. 133 The Commission has previously addressed this concept in the following terms: For an interpretation of a State's obligations vis-a-vis minors, in addition to the provision of the American Convention, the Commission considers it important to refer to other international instruments that contain even more specific rules regarding the protection of children. Those instruments include the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the various United Nations declarations on the subject. This combination of the regional and universal human rights systems for purposes of interpreting the Convention is based on Article 29 of the American Convention and on the consistent practice of the Court and of the Commission in this sphere. 134 123. Specifically, the Court found that both the American Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 135 form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of the child that should help this Court establish the content and scope of the general provision established in Article 19 of the American Convention. Indeed, in various cases concerning children, the Court has relied on specific provisions contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child to interpret Article 19 of the American Convention. 136 124. In that regard, the Commission believes that, bearing in mind the armed conflict that framed the facts in the instant case, it is appropriate to draw attention to Articles 6 and 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provide Article 6 1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. …continuación also, 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, pars. 56 and 60. I/A Court H.R., Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006, par. 154. 131 132 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 156. 133 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63. 134 IACHR, Report No. 41/99, Case 11.491, Minors in Detention, Honduras, March 10, 1999, par. 72. See also: United Nations, General Assembly, Resolution 3318 (XXIX), of December 14, 1974; Resolution 2597 of December 18, 1968; Resolution 2597 of December 16, 1969; Resolution 2674 and 2675 December 9, 1970 and Resolution of the Security Council 1882 of 2009. 135 Colombia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on January 28, 1991. 136 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, par.194; See, also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 148; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004, par. 166.