the child), together with different international instruments and the American Convention, were used in the Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia: 109 153. The content and scope of Article 19 of the American Convention must be defined, in cases such as this, taking into consideration the pertinent provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 110 in particular articles 6, 37, 38 and 39, and of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions, because these instruments and the American Convention form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of children that States must respect.111 Added to this, in application of Article 29 of the Convention, the provisions of article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia must be taken into consideration. 112 68. As we have indicated previously, the pro persona principle implies, inter alia, making the most favorable interpretation for the effective enjoyment and exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms, which, also, prevents using other international instruments to restrict the rights of the American Convention. 113 The Inter-American Court has indicated: 114 51. With respect to the comparison between the American Convention and the other treaties already mentioned, the Court cannot avoid a comment concerning an interpretation suggested by Costa Rica in the hearing of November 8, 1985. According to this argument, if a right recognized by the American Convention were regulated in a more restrictive way in another international human rights instrument, the interpretation of the American Convention would have to take those additional restrictions into account for the following reasons: “If it were not so, we would have to accept that what is legal and permissible on the universal plane would constitute a violation in this hemisphere, which cannot obviously be correct. We think rather that with respect to the interpretation of treaties, the criterion can be established that the rules of a treaty or a convention must be interpreted in relation to the provisions that appear in other treaties that cover the same subject. It can also be contended that the provisions of a regional treaty must be interpreted in the light of the concepts and provisions of instruments of a universal character. (Underlining in original text) It is true, of course, that it is frequently useful – and the Court has just done this – to compare the American Convention with the provisions of other international instruments in order to stress certain aspects concerning the manner in which a certain right has been formulated, but that 109 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” supra, para. 153, and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 148. 110 Ratified by Colombia on January 28, 1991, and entering into force on February 27, 1991. 111 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute,” supra, para. 148; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 166; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra, para. 194, and Legal Status and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC- 17/02, para. 24. 112 Cf. Article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia: “The fundamental rights of the child are: life, physical integrity, health and social security, a balanced diet, name and nationality, to have a family and not be separated from it, love and care, education and culture, recreation and freedom of expression. They shall be protected against any form of abandon, physical or moral violence, kidnapping, sale, sexual abuse, economic or labor exploitation, and hazardous work. They shall also enjoy the other rights embodied in the Constitution, in the laws and in the international treaties ratified by Colombia. The family, society and the State have the obligation to assist and protect the child in order to ensure his or her comprehensive and harmonious development and the full exercise of his or her rights. Anyone may require the competent authority to ensure compliance with the foregoing and to punish offenders. 113 See the separate opinion in the Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 38. 114 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85. November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, concerning Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights) paras. 51 and 52. 23