150. In addition, the Court underlines that, pursuant to Article 19, 17, 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, States are obliged to ensure, by the adoption of the necessary legislative or any other measures, the protection of the child by the family, society and the State itself. In this regard, this Court has recognized the fundamental role of the family for the development of the child and the exercise of his or her rights. 225 Thus, the Court considers that, in order to comply with these obligations, in the area of juvenile criminal justice, the States must have an appropriate legal framework and public policies that are adapted to the international standards indicated above (supra para. 149), and implement a series of measures designed to prevent juvenile delinquency by programs and services that promote the integral development of children and adolescents. Thus, among other matters, the State must disseminate information on the international standards concerning the rights of the child and provide support to vulnerable children and adolescents and also their families. 226 151. Regarding the specific issue raised in this case, directly related to sentencing children to criminal sanctions, the American Convention does not include a list of punitive measures that States may impose when children have committed offenses. However, it is pertinent to note that, in order to determine the legal consequences of the offense when this has been committed by a child, the principle of proportionality is a relevant criterion. According to this principle, there must be a balance between the presumptions and the punishment, both as regards the individualization of the punishment and its judicial application. Therefore, the principle of proportionality means that any response with regard to children who have committed a criminal offense must always be adjusted to their status as minors and to the offense, 227 giving priority to reintegration with the family and/or society. B.1. The sentences imposed on Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 152. First, the Court finds it appropriate to specify that the criminal proceedings concerning Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla were held in the jurisdiction of the province of Mendoza, while the proceedings concerning César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were held in the jurisdiction of the federal capital of Buenos Aires (hereinafter “Buenos Aires”). However, in substance, Law 22,278 on the Juvenile Criminal Regime and the national Criminal Code, both of which apply nationwide, were used in both cases. 153. In this regard, Law 22,278 establishes that: Art 2. The minor aged from sixteen to eighteen years who commits an offense that was not listed in the [… first] article may be punished. […] In these cases, the judicial authority shall submit the minor to the respective proceedings and shall have custody over him or her temporarily during their processing in order to make it possible to exercise the powers conferred by article [… four]. ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.” 225 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC 17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, fourth operative paragraph. 226 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10, Children’s rights in juvenile justice, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, para. 18. 227 Cf. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules"). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985, Rule 5. 53