“child” refers to any person who has not yet turned 18 years of age. 249 Notwithstanding the above, the Court notes that at the time of the facts in question, Article 126 of the Civil Code of Argentina was in effect, which established that “minors are those persons who have not reached the age of twenty one,”250 therefore, and in application of the principle pro persona (Article 29(b) of the Convention), in the instant case it will be understood that Sebastián Furlan acquired legal age when he turned 21 years old, namely on June 6, 1995. 2. Preliminary considerations on the rights of children and of persons with disabilities 124. First, the Court notes that in the instant case, the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention are in relation to the fact that Sebastián Furlan was a child at the time of the accident and that, consequently, this accident resulted in his becoming an adult with disabilities. Taking these two facts into account, the Court considers that the alleged violations must be analyzed in light of: i) the international body of law on the protection of children, and ii) the international standards on the protection and guarantee of the rights of persons with disabilities. These two legal frameworks should be considered as cross-references in the analysis of the instant case. B.1. Rights of children 125. Throughout this Judgment the Court will consider the alleged violations of rights involving a minor, which will be considered in accordance with the international corpus juris on the protection of children. 251 As indicated by the Court on previous occasions, this body of law should help establish the content and scope of the State’s obligations when 252 analyzing the rights of children. In this regard, children are entitled to the rights in the American Convention, in addition to the special measures of protection contemplated in 253 Article 19, which shall be defined according to the specific circumstances of each case. The adoption of special measures for the protection of the child corresponds both to the 254 State and to the family, community and society to which the child belongs. 126. Furthermore, any decision by the State, society or family that involves any limitation of the exercise of any right of a child must take into account the best interests of the child 255 and adhere strictly to the provisions governing this matter. With regard to the best interests of the child, the Court reiterates that this regulating principle regarding the rights of children is based on the very dignity of the human being, on the characteristics of children themselves, and on the need to foster their development, making full use of their 249 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 42 250 Article 126 of the Civil Code of Argentina, prior to the amendment made by Law 26.579 enacted on December 2, 2009. (file of appendices to the pleadings and motions brief, volume VII, page 3154). 251 Cf. Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 44. 252 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina para.44. 253 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of Feburary 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 121, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 44. 254 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 62, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 45. 255 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 65 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para.48. 43