41 exercise his or her rights and obligations and the effects that such situation produces on his or her next-of-kin and 166 third parties. 211. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru violated the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life and juridical personality recognized at Articles 7, 5, 4, and 3 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of Francisco Hilario Torres; his wife, Dionicia Quispe Malqui; their daughters, Antonia and Magdalena Hilario Quispe; their daughter-in-law, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz; Ramón Hilario Morán and his wife Dionicia Guillén; and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara; as well as the children: Yessenia, Miriam and Edith Osnayo Hilario; Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma; Alex Jorge Hilario; and the brothers Raúl and Héctor Hilario Guillén, with the 167 aggravating factor that they were young children at the time of the events. 3. Rights of the Child (Articles 19 and 1(1) of the American Convention) 168 212. Bearing in mind the particular characteristics of the instant case and the fact that seven of the 15 victims were children at the time of their forced disappearance, the Commission believes it appropriate to examine the State’s obligations under Article 19 of the American Convention. 213. According to the Court’s case law, Article 19 of the American Convention should be understood as a complementary right that the Convention establishes for individuals who need a special protection based on 169 their physical and emotional development. Children, therefore, possess not only the same human rights that correspond to all persons, but also special rights accruing to their child status, in regard to which the family, 170 society and the State have specific duties. In sum, the rights of children must be safeguarded both in view of their status as human beings and by reason of their special condition, to which end special protective measures 171 must be adopted. This added obligation to provide protection and these special duties should be regarded as 172 ascertained based on the needs of the child as a person with rights. 214. The Commission has referred in previous cases to the corpus juris on the human rights of the child in the following terms: For an interpretation of a State's obligations vis-a-vis minors, in addition to the provision of the American Convention, the Commission considers it important to refer to other international 166 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 100. 167 See Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, ICTY (2001), where the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found that when the victims of murder, torture or bodily harm are children, this is considered an aggravating factor, and therefore warrants a higher penalty for those responsible. 168 Article 19 of the American Convention States, “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 169 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 106; Case of Baldeón García, Judgment of April 6, 2005. Series C, No. 147, par. 244; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 152; and, in particular, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 147, and Case of Servellón-García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006, par. 113 170 Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, par. 62: Adoption of special measures to protect children is a responsibility both of the State and of the family, community, and society to which they belong. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, par. 160; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, pars. 124, 163-164, and 171; Case of Bulacio, pars. 126 and 134; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), pars. 146 and 191; and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005, par. 172. In the same connection: Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, pars. 56 and 60. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa. Judgment of March 29, 2006, par. 154