37 the protection of children, recognized in Articles 17,144 18,145 and 19146 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras and José Rubén Rivera. In addition, it specified that, “by understanding forced disappearance as a serious violation of the human rights of the direct victims and their next of kin, the State acknowledges that these facts also violated the right to protection of the family, not only of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras and José Rubén Rivera, but also of their families. 104. Despite the foregoing, the Court observes that there is a difference as regards the arguments on the legal grounds for the right to identity in the text of the Convention according to the Commission147 and the representatives,148 and that the State did not specify 144 The pertinent part of Article 17 of the Convention stipulates: “1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” 145 Article 18 of the Convention establishes: “[e]very person has the right to a given name and to the surnames of his parents or that of one of them. The law shall regulate the manner in which this right shall be ensured for all, by the use of assumed names if necessary.” 146 Article 19 of the Convention establishes: “[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 147 For the Commission, Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention incorporate a right to identity in such a way that the total or partial suppression or modification of a child’s right to preserve his or her identity and the elements that make up that identity can involve State responsibility. In this specific case, the Commission alleged that the State, by forcibly disappearing Gregoria Herminia Contreras and facilitating the replacement of her identity through a legal name change, violated the rights acknowledged in Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, which meant that despite the inexhaustible efforts of her mother, María Maura Contreras, to find her along with the support of the Search Association and the Ombudsman’s Office, they were not able to locate her for more than two decades. Likewise, the Commission argued that, taking into account that all the alleged victims were children at the time of their forced disappearance, the Salvadoran State had failed to comply with the obligations derived from Article 17 of the Convention, interpreted jointly with Article 19 of the same instrument. At the same time, it held that the right of all individuals to receive protection against arbitrary or illegal interference in their families forms an implicit part of the right to protection of the family and the child, and in the event that a child is separated from his or her immediate family, the State must work to preserve that bond by temporarily intervening and orienting its actions toward reincorporating the child back into his or her family and community, as long as that reincorporation is not contrary to the child’s best interest. In sum, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and rule that the State had violated Article 17 of the American Convention with regard to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia and Carmelina Ramírez, and José Rubén Rivera as well as the members of their families, and its obligations established in Article 19 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia and Carmelina Ramírez, and José Rubén Rivera. 148 The representatives alleged that the right to identity “must be considered to incorporate the right to family, the right to a name, and the right to juridical personality,” while previously they had held that from the right to identity derive the rights to family and name, which “have been directly affected in this case.” According to the representatives, the family separation deeply affected the alleged victims’ right to identity, for which reason they requested that the Court find the Salvadoran State responsible for the violation of the rights of the alleged victims in this case to family as an element of the right to identity. In the same way, the representatives argued that this Court should assume that the same occurred with all the children who are victims in this case, in particular with the youngest, “as their own ”self” was affected when they were taken from their family and community environment.” In addition, in the case of the alleged victims who were children, they also allege a violation of their right to be subject to special protective measures. The Salvadoran State did not adopt any measure to promote family reunification, or any measure to aid in the recovery of the children who were found from the trauma caused by having been separated from their families for so many years, or any special measures of protection. To the contrary, it ensured that the families would not be reunited through different acts and omissions. With regard to the right to a name, they argued that, according to the facts alleged in this case, it is possible to establish with certainty that Gregoria Herminia Contreras had her original name taken away from her and that the soldier who took her from her parents’ care registered her with a different name - a name that she keeps to this day - and that even though the State is aware of what happened to her, it has not taken any measure to facilitate the recovery of her original identity. Consequently, they requested that the Salvadoran State be declared responsible for the