46 claimed the violation of Article 19 of the Convention, given that the State did not take into account the best interests of the then child Ramiro Osorio Cristales “by keeping him separated from his family, with a different name and identity and […] ignoring all measures to identify and locate his biological family in order to return him to his home.” 158. The Commission did not plead the violation of the aforementioned rights in the application167. 159. The State did not make any specific arguments to disprove the representatives’ claims with regard to the alleged violations, but limited itself to questioning the Court’s jurisdiction on this matter (supra para. 32). 160. The Court observes that the alleged facts on which the representatives claimed the violation of Articles 17, 18, and 19 of the Convention with regard to Ramiro Osorio Cristales are based on the fact that, after March 9, 1987, the State kept him separated from his family who survived the Las Dos Erres massacre, with another name and identity, after having been abducted and illegally retained by one of the militaries who participated in said massacre. 161. On the other hand, taking into consideration that the Commission did not claim the violation of the aforementioned Articles of the Convention to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, the Court reiterates its constant jurisprudence, in the sense that “the alleged victim, their next of kin, or the representatives may invoke rights different from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented therein.” 168 Consequently, the Court must determine whether the claims related to the alleged violation of those Articles are based on facts contained in the application. 162. In this regard, the Commission indicated in the application that “only two minors survived from dying in the hands of the Guatemalan army: a child who was kidnapped by one of the kaibiles, and another child who managed to escape the soldiers when they were being taken to the well” and that it “[h]as been extensively documented that several children were saved from massacres in order to be [‘]adopted[’] by army officers or taken to their homes as servants. [An example of this practice is] precisely the case of the child survivor of the Las Dos Erres massacre, Ramiro Fernando López García, [whose biological name is Ramiro Osorio Cristales,] who was adopted by one of the soldiers who participated in the facts.” 163. Additionally, in the application the Commission included Ramiro Osorio Cristales’ testimony of February 11, 1999 before the Judge of the First Criminal Court of Petén, on that occurred in the community of Las Dos Erres, in which he expressed that “the [kaibil Santos López Alonso] took him along with him through the mountain and shared his food with [him], and that’s how he [ended] up in the School for Kaibiles[. He was] at the School for Kaibiles for approximately two months, from 167 In this regard, it is worth noting that the Commission concluded, in the report on Merits 22/08 of the instant case, that “[t]he State of Guatemala [was] responsible for the violation of human rights […] to the protection of the family and of the child, […] in conformity with Articles […] 17 [and] 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof” (supra note 5). Similarly, the Court takes cognizance that in the Friendly Settlement Agreement of April 1, 2000, the State recognized its international responsibility for the violation of several rights, including the rights of the family and rights of the child (supra note 3). 168 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para 155; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 97, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 191.