17 100. Furthermore, the Commission finds that, in light of the fact that seven of the 15 alleged victims were children at the time of the events, the facts alleged in the petition could also establish possible violations of Article 19 of the American Convention. Pursuant to the rules on interpretation of human rights set forth in the American 8 Convention, as well as the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the 9 tendency to integrate the regional and universal systems for the protection of human rights, and as regards the 10 notion of corpus juris for the protection of the child, the Commission will interpret the scope and content of the rights allegedly violated to the detriment of the seven children in the light of the provisions contained in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 101. Furthermore, in view of the factual evidence set out in the instant petition and pursuant to the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission must assess the possible responsibility of the State for an alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in view of the fact that the disappeared persons belonged to two families. 102. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioners and that the petition is admissible under the rules set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. V. ANALYSIS ON MERITS 103. The Commission notes that during the processing of the case the State initially denied the facts and subsequently recognized that “[t]he acts perpetrated in the community of Santa Barbara constitute a violation of the rights to freedom, life and physical integrity recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which instruments were in force at the time that the deeds were committed.” The Commission understands that the State recognizes its responsibility for the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, and the other instruments above mentioned. The Commission values that the State had accepted its international responsibility related to these aspects of the case, and gives full recognition to this recognition. 104. The Commission observes that the State refers to the recognition of responsibility within the previous scope and in general terms regarding 14 of the 15 victims. The State has not referred lately to that recognition, it has not specified to what facts it applies, and it has not accepted responsibility related to the claims presented under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 105. The Commission also notes the differences between the positions of the parties regarding the scope of this recognition of responsibility and ability to establish the truth of what happened, to assist the administration of justice and seek redress for damages. Based on these differences the Commission considers necessary to record the facts of this case, as they arise from the file before the Commission and the Final Report of 8 American Convention, Article 29, Restrictions Regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: […] b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party […]. 9 I/A Court H.R., “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A, No. 1, par. 41. 10 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, par. 194. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 148; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110, par. 166. 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. 24, 37, 53.