the Convention on the Rights of the Child,226 to which Guatemala has been a party since June 6, 1990, and which gives content to Article 19 of the American Convention. Also, in General Comment No. 11, the Committee on the Rights of the Child considered that “empowerment of indigenous children and the effective exercise of their rights to culture, religion and language provide an essential foundation of a culturally diverse State,’’227 and that this right “is an important recognition of the collective traditions and values in indigenous cultures.”228 144. In previous cases, this Court has held that the development of the child is a holistic concept that includes the physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development.229 For the full and harmonious development of their personality, indigenous children, in keeping with their cosmovision, need to grow and develop preferably within their own natural and cultural environment, because they possess a distinctive identity that connects them to their land, culture, religion, and language.230 145. In addition, Article 17 of the American Convention recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental group of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.231 Given the importance of the right to protection of the family, the Court has established that the State is obliged to encourage the development and strength of the family unit and that the separation of children from their family constitutes, in certain circumstances, a violation of their right to a family. Thus, children have the right to live with their family, which is required to satisfy their material, affective and psychological needs.232 The right of every person to receive protection against arbitrary and illegal interference in their family is an implicit part of the right to the protection of the family and of the child.233 artistic, recreational and leisure activity.” Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 167, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 261. 225 Article 30 establishes that “[i]n those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.” The background for this provision can be found in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly by Resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, which recognizes this right to minority groups, without mentioning indigenous peoples explicitly. Article 27 stipulates: “[i]n those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” 226 Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Assembly Resolution 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49), p. 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entry into force 2 September 1990. 227 U.N.. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 11. Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, 12 February 2009, para. 82. 228 Cf. U.N.. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 11. Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, 12 February 2009, para. 16. See also, Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, para. 168. 229 Cf. U.N.. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 5. General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 27 November 2003, para. 12. The concept of holistic development can be found in previous case law of the Court. Cf. Case of the "Children’s Rehabilitation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 161, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 169. 230 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 169. 231 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 66, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 156. 232 Cf. Advisory Opinion. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 71, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 46. 233 Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 71, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 170. In this regard, in Advisory Opinion No. 17 on the Juridical 58