that are accompanied by specific obligations of the family, society, and the State.” 203 For the purposes of this Judgment, because it has been proved that César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández were between 16 and 18 years of age when they committed the offenses with which they were charged, the Court will refer to them as “children.” 141. Children are bearers of all the rights established in the American Convention, in addition to the special measures of protection provided for in Article 19 of this instrument, which must be defined according to the particular circumstances of each specific case. 204 The adoption of special measures for the protection of the child corresponds to the State, the family, the community, and the society to which the child belongs. 205 142. Furthermore, all State, social or family decisions that involve any limitation to the exercise of any right of a child must take into account the principle of the best interests of the child and rigorously respect the provisions that govern this matter. 206 Regarding the best interests of the child, the Court reiterates that this regulating principle of the laws on the rights of the child is based on the dignity of the human being, on the inherent characteristics of children, and on the need to foster their development making full use of their potential, 207 as well as on the nature and scope of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 208 Thus, this principle is reiterated and developed in Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states: 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 143. The Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to the child’s best interests (Articles 3, 9, 18, 20, 21, 37 and 40) as a reference point to ensure the effective realization of all the rights recognized in that instrument, respect for which will allow the individual to develop his or her potential to the highest degree. The actions of the State and society as regards the protection of children and the promotion and preservation of their rights must adhere to this standard. 209 In this regard, based on the consideration of the best interests of the child as an interpretative principle aimed at ensuring the maximum satisfaction of the rights of the child, they should also serve to ensure minimal restriction of such rights. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that children exercise their rights progressively as they gradually develop a higher level of personal autonomy. 210 Consequently, the person who applies the 203 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 54. 204 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 121, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012 Series C No. 246, para. 125. 205 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 62, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 125. 206 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 65, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 126. 207 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 126. 208 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 56. 209 59. Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 210 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7, “Implementing child rights in early childhood, CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1, 20 September 2006, para. 17, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 230. 49