to ensure justice for the family, having as a consequence the impossibility of forming a family and going through a pregnancy for the trauma that she suffered when she was an adolescent. 94. The Court, therefore, finds that the death of Ms. Brítez Arce, in addition to having an impact on the right to personal integrity of her son and daughter, had, as an immediate effect, the total disintegration of the family, The Court recalls that, under Article 17 of the Convention, the family “is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to be protected by society and the state.” Thus, the Court has held that the State is obligated to favor the development and strengthening of the nuclear family121 and that children have the right to live with their family, which is called upon to meet their material, emotional and psychological needs.122 95. Moreover, Article 19 of the Convention imposes on the States the obligation to adopt the “measures of protection” required by a child’s condition. The concept “measures of protection” may be interpreted by considering other provisions in the Convention and in other international human rights instruments. Therefore, in order to establish the content and scope of that article, the Court takes into account the international corpus juris on the protection of children; in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in its Preamble that “for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.” The Court reiterates that the due protection of the rights of children, as holders of rights, must take into account their characteristics and the need to foster their development, offering them the necessary conditions to live and develop their talents in order to fully exploit their potential,123 which did not occur in this case. 96. In application of the principle iura novit curia, the Court finds a violation of the right to the protection of the family and the rights of the child, established in Articles 17(1) and 19 of the American Convention. 97. Therefore, the Court considers that the death of Ms. Brítez Arce, the distress of her son and daughter for the loss of their mother and the disintegration of their family affected the rights to personal integrity, to protection of the family and of the child regarding Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro and, therefore, finds the State responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 5(1), 17(1) and 19 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the aforementioned persons. VIII REPARATIONS 98. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.124 The Court has established Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66 and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 183. 121 122 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 7 and Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 84. Cf. Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 106 and Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Maasacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 92. 123 124 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 91. 28