73 the families living in Turbo; and that it is responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the same in relation to Articles 11.2, 17.1, 19 and 1.1 to the prejudice of the children. The Forced Displacement and its Impact on the Displaced Children 327. From the findings of fact it is apparent that the children suffered the violence of the armed operations leading to their displacement, as well as the consequences of the displacement itself; among other things, via the impact on their living conditions. 328. In this respect, in accordance with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the Commission takes into consideration that the children have the right to protection and assistance and to 344 treatment required by their status that takes account of their special needs. In the preceding paragraph, on finding the State's responsibility for a violation of the rights of the child for the absence of protection of the family, the Commission emphasized that the overriding interests of the child must be a fundamental consideration in all measures involving the children, and that they must be recipients of 345 special measures of protection. In this respect, the Court has established that the protective measures the State is obliged to adopt in favor of children vary according to the particular circumstances of the case 346 and their personal condition. 329. In addition, the Court has established that special duties derive from the States' 347 international responsibilities for their general obligations in the context of the American Convention, identifiable as a result of the subject of the right's individual need for protection, or due to his or her 348 personal condition, or from the specific situation they are in, such as extreme poverty, social exclusion 349 or childhood. 330. Specifically, in the special circumstances of the armed conflict in Colombia, it is more evident that children are especially vulnerable, since "they are the least prepared to adapt or respond to 350 this situation and are those who suffer immeasurably from its extremes." Therefore, the Commission has repeatedly pointed out that the special duty of protection incumbent on the State in favor of children 351 comprises both positive and negative obligations. 331. The Court has used specific provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to 352 interpret Article 19 of the American Convention. In this regard, paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 38 provide that 344 Annex 91. Principle 4 of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 of February 11, 1998. See:http://www.un-documents.net/gpid.htm. 345 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, para. 62. 346 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 166. 347 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, para. 111; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111, and Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 348 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, paras. 111 and 112; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 108 and 110, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 71. 349 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 154. 350 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 246; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”” v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 156. 351 352 IACHR. Report No. 25/02, Case 11.763, Massacre of Plan de Sánchez, February 28, 2002, para. 158. I/A Court H.R. Case of “the Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194; see also: Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 148; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 166.