process to ensure that the best interests of the child are taken into consideration. The Convention obliges States parties to assure that those responsible for these actions hear the child as stipulated in 12."127 115. Accordingly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child encouraged States to introduce legislative measures requiring decision makers in judicial or administrative proceedings to explain the extent of the consideration given to the views of the child and the consequences for the child.128 Likewise, the Committee has considered that "A child cannot be heard effectively where the environment is intimidating, hostile, insensitive or inappropriate for her or his age. Proceedings must be both accessible and child-appropriate. Particular attention needs to be paid to the provision and delivery of child-friendly information, adequate support for selfadvocacy, appropriately trained staff, design of court rooms, clothing of judges and lawyers, sight screens, and separate waiting rooms."129 116. The I/A Court of H.R. has recognized the existence of this principle, mentioning that Article 19 of the Convention, "in addition to granting special protection to the rights recognized therein, establishes a State obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized to children in other applicable international instruments. It is relevant to refer to Articles 12 and (...) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognize, respectively, the right of the child to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the 130 child." 117. It has also maintained that children exercise their rights progressively as they develop a greater level of personal autonomy. Consequently, those responsible for application of the law, whether in the administrative or judiciary sphere, "must take into account the specific conditions of the minor and his or her best interests to decide on the child’s participation, as appropriate, in establishing his or her rights. This consideration will seek as much access as possible by the minor to examination of his or her own case (...). Simply listening to the child is insufficient; the views of the child have to be seriously considered when the child is capable of forming her or his own views, for which the views of the child have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis."131 118. The IACHR has maintained that, derived from Article 8.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with the special duty to protect upheld in Article 19 thereof and in relation to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, States have additional obligations to regulate the proceedings so as to guarantee the children’s effective participation, such as adapting the communication methodologies used to facilitate the expression of opinions of all children, especially to meet the requirements of children who have greater difficulties or barriers to express themselves, because of their young age and consequent limits on verbalization of opinions, or because of the existence of any disabilities.132 2. Rights not to be victims of interference in family life and to protection of the family 133 119. Article 11 of the Convention protects everyone from interference in their private life. The Inter-American Court has considered that interferences with the right to family life are particularly serious when they impair the rights of children,134 and it has held that "the child must stay with her or his nuclear family, unless there are paramount reasons based on the best interests of the child to opt for separation from the family. In any event, the General Comment No. 12 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on "The right of the child to be heard." CRC/C/GC/12. 20 July 2009, para. 70. 128 Para. 33. 129 Para. 34. 130 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, par. 219. 131 I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, paragraph 230. 132 The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54/13. October 17, 2013, par. 252. 133 In its admissibility report, the Commission did not pronounce on the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. However, the facts underlying its analysis stem from information and documents provided by the parties during the processing of the instant case, in respect of which the State had an opportunity to defend itself and present arguments. 134 I/A Court H.R. Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, par. 171 127