40 110. Regarding the right to a name, the Court has established that it “constitutes a basic and indispensable element of the identity of each person.”160 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, “States must ensure that every person is registered under the name that his or her parents have chosen, whenever the registration takes place, without any type of restriction to the right or interference in the decision to choose the name. Once a person is registered, the possibility of preserving and re-establishing the given name and surname must be ensured. The given name and surname are essential to establish formally the connection that exists between the different members of the family.”161 111. In this regard, the Court found it proven that the persons who appropriated Gregoria Herminia Contreras at the age of four, registered her with false personal data on May 16, 1988, altering, among other elements, part of the name and the surname given to her by her biological parents, personal data with which she has lived since then. The change in her name and surname, carried out to conceal her identity, still remains because the State has not taken the necessary measures to make the pertinent changes in her registration and identity document, including not only her name and surname, but also the date and place of birth, and the information on her biological parents.162 Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 18 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Gregoria Herminia Contreras. 112. Nevertheless, the Court has recognized163 that the right to identity is not expressly provided for in the American Convention.164 However, Article 29(c) of this instrument establishes that “[n]o provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as […] precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government.” In this regard, the Court has used the “Norms on Interpretation” of this article to clarify the content of certain provisions of the 160 Case 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; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 127, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 150, para. 192. 161 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls, supra note 160, para. 184, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 150, para. 192. 162 Cf. Passport issued by the Republic of El Salvador in which Gregoria Herminia Contreras appears as Gregoria de Jesús Molina (merits file, volume II, folio 860); Birth certificate in which Gregoria Herminia Contreras appears registered as Gregoria de Jesús Molina, supra note 81, and Birth certificate of Gregoria Herminia Contreras, supra note 67. 163 164 Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 122. Similarly, within the European framework of human rights protection, there is no provision explicitly recognizing a right to identity in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently found that Article 8 of the European Convention “protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.” Thus private life includes aspects of “an individual’s social and physical identity.” In addition, private life protects “gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life, […] the right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.” Eur. Court HR, Case of Bensaid v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 44599/98). Judgment of 6 February 2001, para. 47; Eur. Court HR, Case of Pretty v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 2346/02). Judgment of 29 April 2002, para. 61, and Eur. Court HR, Case of Peck v. United Kingdom (Application no. 44647/98). Judgment of 28 January 2003, para. 57. That European Court’s case law refers abundantly to the right to identity, a significant part of which relates to the right to information on the biological truth. In this regard, it has indicated that a broad interpretation of the scope of the notion of private life also recognizes the right of all individuals “to know their origins.” On this aspect, the European Court has indicated that “people have a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the necessary information to know and to understand their childhood and early development.” Eur. Court HR, Case of Odièvre v. France (Application no. 42326/98). Judgment of 13 February 2003, paras. 42 and 44. See also, Eur. Court HR, Case of Mikulić v. Croatia (Application no. 53176/99). Judgment of 7 February 2002, paras. 57 and 64.