which he or she is entitled, the disappearance seeks, not only one of the most serious ways of removing a person from the sphere of the law, but is a denial of his or her very existence, leaving the victim in a sort of limbo or a situation of legal uncertainty before society and the State.199 120. Regarding the rights of the child protected by the Convention, the Court has established that children have special rights that entail corresponding and specific obligations for the family, society and the State. Their condition demands special protection from the latter and must be understood as a right that is additional and complementary to the other rights that the Convention recognizes for all people.200 The primacy of the best interest of the child must be understood as the need to observe all the rights of children, which are binding for the State and have an impact on the interpretation of all the other rights of the Convention when a case relates to minors.201 The State must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of children based on their special condition of vulnerability.202 121. Based on the above, as well as on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the evidence provided to the Court in this case, the Court will analyze the arguments of the parties regarding the forced disappearance of the 15 people, at least, taken away in a helicopter during the massacre perpetrated on May 14, 1982, in the community of Los Encuentros (supra para. 80), whose whereabouts remain unknown, and also of Ramona Lajuj and the minor at the time, Manuel Chen Sánchez, who have already been acknowledged as victims of forced disappearance by the State. C. The forced disappearance of 17 people taken away by helicopter during the massacre perpetrated in Los Encuentros on May 14, 1982 122. Regarding the facts of the massacre of May 14, 1982, in Los Encuentros (supra para. 80), the Court observes, first, that the State has acknowledged the forced disappearance of Ramona Lajuj203 and the minor Manuel Chen Sánchez (supra para. 17(a)), who, according to the case file, formed part of the group of people who were forced to board a helicopter in Los Encuentros.204 Thus, Manuel Chen Sanchez was about two years old when he was disappeared, and seven when the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.205 199 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 90, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 188. 200 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 27, paras. 53, 54 and 60, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 184. 201 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, paras. 56, 57 and 60, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 257. 202 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 184, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 257. 203 Cf. birth certificate de Ramona Lajuj (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XXVII, folio 16417). 204 Cf. testimony of Carmen Sánchez Chen (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome I, folios 526, 527 and 529). The Court also observes that the death certificates of Ramona Lajuj and Manuel Chen Sánchez mention “presumed death” as cause of death. Cf. death certificate of Ramona Lajuj (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XXVII, folio 16415), and death certificate of Manuel Chen Sánchez (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XXVII, folio 16356). 205 Cf. birth certificate of Manuel Chen Sánchez (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XXVII, folio 16358). 51