71 the Convention. The European Court has also established that the contents of the right to family life must 332 also comprise this double viewpoint. 317. The relevant facts were of the knowledge of the State since the begining of proceedings; thus the State has had adequate opportunity to contest them. In view of these elements and applying the principle of iura novit curia, which permits international organs to apply all the relevant legal provisions, the Commission will apply Article 11 of the American Convention in its analysis. 318. Additionally, Article 19 of the American Convention which consecrates the rights of the child, also guarantees the rights of the family. In this respect, the Court has established that The child has the right to live with his or her family, which is responsible for satisfying his or her material, emotional, and psychological needs. Every person's right to receive protection against arbitrary or illegal interference with his or her family is implicitly a part of the right to protection of the family and the child, and it is also explicitly recognized by Articles 12(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 11(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. These provisions are especially 333 significant when separation of a child from his or her family is being analyzed. 319. The Court has established that the said norm must be understood as an additional and complementary right, which the Convention establishes for persons who by their physical and emotional 334 development need special protection. Children, therefore, are entitled both to the human rights of everyone else, as well as those special rights derived from their particular condition of vulnerability and 335 which involve specific duties of the family, society and the State. Also in accordance with the overriding interests of the child, based on their own characteristics, is the necessity of fostering their 336 development, fully maximizing their potential, as well as their own dignity as human beings. 320. In order to determine the scope of the right to protection of the family regarding children, 337 the Inter-American Court and the Commission have referred to the corpus juris of the human rights of 338 339 children. In this respect the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Colombia is a party, establishes the relationship of the special duty of protection for children and the institution of the family in the following way 332 Eur. Ct. H.R., Nuutinen v. Finland, Application No. 32842/96, Judgment of June 27, 2000, para. 127; Hokkanen v. Finland, Application No. 19823/92, Judgment of September 23, 1994, para. 55; and Keegan v. Ireland, Application No. 16969/90, Judgment of May 26, 1994, para. 49. 333 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 71 334 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006Series C No. 148, para. 106; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 244; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 113. 335 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para.54. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 257. 336 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 244. See also I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 134; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 134; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 172. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 164. 337 IACHR Report No. 41/99, Case 11.491, Merits, Detained Minors, Honduras, March 10, 1999, para. 72. 338 I/A Court H.R. Case of “the Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194 339 Colombia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child since January 28, 1991.