57 jurisdiction, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico were children84 who, as such, had special rights corresponding to specific obligations of the family, society and the State that required the special protection of the State, and this should be understood as an additional and complementary right.85 134. This Court has stated that the cases in which the victims of human rights violations are children are particularly serious.86 The prevalence of the child’s superior interest should be understood as the need to satisfy all the rights of the child, and this obliges the State and affects the interpretation of the other rights established in the Convention when the case refers to children.87 Moreover, the State must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of the alleged victims owing to their condition as girl children, who belong to a vulnerable group.88 135. In view of the above, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of Article 19 of the American Convention in isolation, but will include its decision in this regard together with the examination of the other articles that are relevant to this case. * * * 136. With regard to the right embodied in Article 20 of the Convention, the Court understands that nationality is a juridical expression of a social fact that connects an individual to a State.89 Nationality is a fundamental human right enshrined in the American Convention, and other international instruments,90 and is non-derogable in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention. 137. The importance of nationality is that, as the political and legal bond that connects a person to a specific State,91 it allows the individual to acquire and 84 The Court notes that when it delivered this judgment, Dilcia Yean was 9 years old and Violeta Bosico was 20 years old; however, given that on March 25, 1999, Dilcia and Violeta were 2 years old and 14 years old, respectively, the Court will refer to the alleged victims as children, Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 42. 85 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 84, paras. 53, 54 and 60, and the Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 164. 86 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C. No. 64 para. 146; the Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 85, para. 162, and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 133. 87 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 84, paras. 56, 57 and 60. 88 Cf. United Nations, Committee for the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 24, on the application of Article 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. 89 Cf. Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein vs. Guatemala), second phase. Judgment of 6 April 1955. International Court of Justice, ICJ Reports 1955, p. 23. 90 Cf., among others, American Declaration of Human Rights, Article XIX; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 24(3); Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7(1); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, Article 29, and Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 1(1). 91 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 35.