to their existence based on their own preferences and convictions. 84 In this context, the principle of personal autonomy plays an essential role as it prohibits any action by the State that tries to exploit or utilize the individual; in other words, any action that converts the individual into a means to an end which is alien to the choices about their own life, body and the full development of their personality, within the limits imposed by the Convention. Thus, based on the principle of the free development of the personality or of personal autonomy, everyone is free and autonomous to live in a way that accords with their values, beliefs, convictions and interests. 85 60. The Court has also made a broad interpretation of Article 7(1) of the American Convention, indicating that it includes a wide-ranging concept of liberty, understood as the capacity to do or not to do whatever is legally permitted. In other words, it constitutes the right of everyone to organize, pursuant to the law, their individual and social life in accordance with their own choices and convictions. 86 Defined as such, liberty is a basic human right, inherent in the attributes of the person, which pervades the entire American Convention. 87 61. Regarding the right to identity, the Court has indicated that, in general terms, this may be conceived as the series of attributes and characteristics that individualize a person in society and that encompass several rights depending on the subject of rights in question and the respective circumstances. 88 The right to identity may be affected by numerous situations or contexts that may occur from childhood to adulthood. 89 Although the American Convention does not specifically refer to the right to identity as such, it includes other rights that comprise it. 90 Thus, the Court recalls that the American Convention protects those elements as rights in themselves, even though not all such rights will necessarily be implicated in all cases that concern the right to identity. 91 Moreover, the right to identity cannot be confused with, or reduced or subordinated to one of the rights that it includes, nor to the sum of them. 92 In addition, this Court has indicated that the right to identity is closely related to human dignity, the right to privacy and the principle of personal autonomy (Articles 7 and 11 of the American Convention). 93 62. It can also be understood that this right is closely linked to the individual in his or her specific individuality and private life, both of which are supported by historical and biological experiences and 84 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 150; Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 136, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 116. 85 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 88. See also, Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 204. Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 116. 86 87 Cf., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 52; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 142, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 327. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 90, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 122; Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 123, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 359. 88 89 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 113, and Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 90. 90 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 122, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 359. Also, see OAS, Inter-American Juridical Committee, Opinion “on the scope of the right to identity”, Resolution CJI/doc. 276/07 rev. 1, of August 10, 2007, para. 11.2. Cf. Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 116 and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 359. 91 92 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/174, supra, para. 90, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 359. Also, see OAS, Inter-American Juridical Committee, Opinion “on the scope of the right to identity,” Resolution CJI/doc. 276/07 rev. 1, of August 10, 2007, para. 11. 93 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 149 a 152, and Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 90. 19