the due guarantees to ensure that, as human rights defenders, they could carry out their activities freely. 183. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association of Alejandra García Montenegro, who was aged three years and nine months when Guatemala accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court finds it necessary to recall that it has recognized that children exercise their rights progressively as they develop a higher level of personal autonomy; thus, in their early childhood, they exercise their rights through their family members. Obviously, there is considerable variation in each child’s level of physical and intellectual development, experience and information. 274 184. The Court also points out, as it has in other cases, that both the American Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of children that this Court uses to establish the content and scope of the general provision defined in Article 19 of the American Convention. 275 The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified almost universally, contains several provisions that refer to the State's obligations in relation to children. In this regard, Article 15 recognizes “the rights of the child to freedom of association,” without further restrictions to its exercise other than those “imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedom of others.” 185. The Court observes that, regarding the alleged violation of Alejandra García Montenegro’s right to freedom of association, it has insufficient evidence to declare this violation to her detriment. The information provided in this regard reveals the violation of Alejandra García Montenegro’s personal integrity owing to her suffering because of the situation experienced by her family as a result of her father’s forced disappearance, and having been unable to accompany her mother in the actions to search for her father during her early childhood (supra para. 87), which was examined by the Court in section A of this Chapter. 186. Based on the above, the Court declares that the State violated the right to freedom of association recognized in Article 16(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom and María Emilia García. 187. Finally, regarding the alleged violation of freedom of expression, the Court reiterates that the parties must prove that this alleged violation is constituted for reasons other than the intrinsic relationship that exists between this right and the right to freedom of association (supra para. 122). Thus, the Court notes that it is not appropriate to declare a violation of freedom of expression for the same reasons for which it has established the violation of freedom of association. Consequently, the Court considers that, even though in this case there are contextual elements that reveal that there was an autonomous violation of the right to freedom of expression, insufficient evidence was provided to determine that there was an autonomous violation of the right to freedom of expression to the detriment of the members of Edgar Fernando García’s family. 274 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 68. 275 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 194, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 142. 65