and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or "the I/A Court of H.R”)94, that body of law should serve to define the content and scope of the obligations taken on by the State in the American Convention, whenever children's rights are being analyzed. The Commission highlights the fact that, specifically in cases relating to the international return of children, the European Court of Human Rights has considered applying instruments that form part of the corpus juris on the rights of the child when making decisions based on its competence vis-à-vis the European Convention on the Human Rights, pointing out that "in the area of international child abduction the obligations imposed by Article 8 on the Contracting States must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention (...) and of the relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties."95 88. In light of the above, in analyzing the facts of this case particular mention will be made of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; the InterAmerican Convention on the International Return of Children; General Comment No. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1); and General Comment No. 12 on the right of the child to be heard, these last two being documents of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 89. In addition, the Commission issues a reminder that it is not up to it to replace national courts and authorities that are better positioned to determine matters relating to care and custody and civil aspects regarding children. That said, the Commission observes that, when hearing cases relating to the international return of children, the European Court of Human Rights has referred to the need to make a "combined and harmonious application of ... the Convention and the Hague Convention." 96 To that end, and bearing in mind that the Hague Convention regulates the obligations of the Contracting States with respect to the international return procedure, the Commission deems it necessary to examine its provisions and, in particular, to verify whether the state authorities and the decisions they took were sufficiently substantiated, taking into account the obligations established in the American Convention with regard to the best interests of the child.97 a) Relevant provisions regarding international return procedures 90. Having established the above, the Commission observes that Article 1 of the Convention of October 25, 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction98 states that its objects are: "a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States." 91. As the Convention establishes in Article 3, the removal or retention of a child shall be considered wrongful: a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State. I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, par. 149; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999, paras. 149 and 195; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 194; Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, par. 106; I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, par. 44. 95 European Court of Human Rights. Case of X v. Latvia (Application no. 27853/09). Judgment of November 26, 2013, par. 93. 96 European Court of Human Rights. Case of X v. Latvia (Application no. 27853/09). Judgment of November 26, 2013, par. 94-95. 97 On that, see: European Court of Human Rights. Case of X v. Latvia (Application no. 27853/09). Judgment of November 26, 2013, par. 106. 98 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, October 25, 1980. 94