46 protection of the family, by making it impossible or difficult for her to stay with her family nucleus and to establish a relationship with them. The State had knowledge of the existence of María Macarena Gelman and her situation, but until the year 2000, it failed to take any step to guarantee her right to family. 127. As regards the right to a name, recognized in Article 18 of the Convention, and also established in various other international instruments, 142 the Court has established that it constitutes a basic and essential element of the identity of every person, without which an individual cannot be recognized by society or registered before the State. 143 The first and last name are “essential to formally establish the link between the different family members.” 144 This right implies, therefore, that States must ensure that the person is registered under the name chosen by his or her parents, at the time of registration, without any restriction on the right or interference with the decision to choose a name and that once the person is registered, that it be possible to preserve and reestablish this name and surname. In this case, María Macarena Gelman lived with a different name and identity for over 23 years. Her name change, as a means of suppressing her identity and keeping secret the enforced disappearance of her mother, was maintained until the year 2005, when the Uruguayan authorities recognized her affiliation and accepted her name change. 128. On the other hand, the right to nationality, enshrined in Article 20 of the Convention, forming a legal relationship between the person and the State and is, on the one hand, a prerequisite to be able to exercise specific rights, 145 and on the other hand, a right of non-extendible nature recognized in the American Convention, 146 as well as in other international instruments. It therefore involves the obligation of the State to establish a relationship, both to provide the individual with legal protection in its relationships and to protect the individual from the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, and therefore, of all the political rights and those civil rights that it entails. 147 It also imports, when children are involved, the obligation to                                                          142 Cf. among others, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 24.2; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7(1); African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 6(1), and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 29. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed that the right to a name is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, eventhough it is not specifically mentioned, Cf. T.E.D.H., Stjerna v. Finland, Application No. 18131/91, Judgment of 25 November 1994, para. 37, and T.E.D.H., Case of Burghartz v. Switzerland, Application No. 16213/90 Judgment of 22 February 1994, para. 24. 143 Cf. Case of of the Yean and Bosico girls V. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 182, and Case of The Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 127, para. 192. 144 Cf. Case of of the Yean and Bosico girls, supra note 143, para. 184, and Case of The Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 127, para. 192. 145 Cf. Case of of the Yean and Bosico girls, supra note 143, para. 137. 146 Cf. Case of of the Yean and Bosico girls, supra note 143, para. 136. In this regard, the Court recognized not subject to suspension as a a non-derrogable nucleus of rights. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 119, and Case of González et al.s (“Campo Algodonero”), supra note 79, para. 244. The Court recalls that its jurisprudence considers the right to a nationality as not subject to suspension. In this regard, Cf. El Hábeas Corpus Bajo Suspensión de Garantías (arts. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 23. 147 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 34; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V.