100 emotional development.217 In this regard, cases such as this one are particularly serious, when the victims of human rights violations are children who have special rights, arising from their condition, which entail specific obligations on the part of the family, society and the State.218 On this issue, the principle of the best interest of the child rules, and this is based on the dignity of the individual, on the special characteristics of children, and on the need to allow them to develop their full potential.219 245. In this regard, the Court observes that the children, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Jorge Correa Sánchez, Omar Daniel Pérez Areiza, José Leonel Areiza Posada and Marco Aurelio Areiza Posada did not receive the special measures of protection they required, owing to their situation of vulnerability, because of their age. 246. When determining aggravated responsibility, it should be taken into consideration that the alleged victims in this case, indicated in the previous paragraph, were children.220 Thus, the Court considers it necessary to call attention to the consequences of the brutality with which the facts in this case were committed in relation to the children of La Granja and El Aro, who experienced this violence in a situation of armed conflict, who have been partially orphaned, who have been displaced, and whose physical and psychological integrity has been violated. The special vulnerability, owing to their condition as children, is even more evident in a situation of internal armed conflict, as in this case, because children are less prepared to adapt or respond to this type of situation and suffer its excesses disproportionately.221 247. From the body of evidence and, in particular, from the statements of the inhabitants of Ituango, it is clear that there were many children who witnessed the events of El Aro and La Granja. However, they were not individualized in the proceedings before the Court as children. Therefore, in the instant case, the Court does not have the evidence necessary to declare a violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the children other than Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Jorge Correa Sánchez, Omar Daniel Pérez Areiza, José Leonel Areiza Posada and Marco Aurelio Areiza Posada. * * * 217 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 54. Also, cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 177; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 152; and the Yean and Bosico Children case. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 133. 218 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra para. 217, para. 54. Also, cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 152; The Yean and Bosico Children case, supra note 217, para. 133; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, para. 147. 219 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra para. 217, para. 56. Also, cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 152; the Yean and Bosico Children case, supra note 217, para. 134; and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 174, para. 172. 220 221 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 174, para. 76. Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra para. 217, para. 82; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 156.