267. In this regard, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS General Assembly”) has indicated “that recognition of the identity of persons is one of the means through which observance of the rights to juridical personality, a name, a nationality, civil registration, and family relationships is facilitated, among other rights recognized in international instruments, such as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights.” 315 It has also determined that “the failure to recognize identity may signify that the individual has no legal record of his existence, making it difficult for him to exercise fully his civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.” 316 Similarly, the InterAmerican Juridical Committee has stated that the “right to identity is consubstantial to human rights and dignity” that that, consequently, “it is a fundamental human right opposable erga omnes as an expression of a collective interest of the international community as a whole, which admits neither annulment nor suspension in the cases established in the American Convention.” 317 268. As revealed by the foregoing, the right to a name is also connected to identity. Regarding that right, recognized in Article 18 of the Convention, the Court has determined that it “constitutes a basic and essential element of the identity of each person, without which he cannot be recognized by society or registered by the State. [Thus,] States […] have the obligation not only to protect the right to a name, but also to provide the necessary measures to facilitate the registration of the individual immediately after his birth.” 318 The Court has indicated that: States must ensure that the individual is registered with the name chosen by that person or by his or her parents, according to the moment of registration, without any type of restriction of the right or interference in the decision to choose the name. Once the individual has been registered, States must guarantee the possibility of preserving and re-establishing the name and surname. The name and surnames are essential to establish formally the relationship that exists between the different members of the family. 319 attributes and dignity,’ and an autonomous right, possessing ‘a core of clearly identifiable elements that include the right to a name, the right to nationality, and the right to family relations.’ In fact, ‘it is a basic human right enforceable erga omnes as an expression of a collective interest of the international community as a whole, that does not admit annulment or suspension in the cases established in the American Convention.’ [Opinion adopted by the Inter-American Juridical Committee “on the scope of the right to identity,” at the seventy-first regular session, CJI/doc.276/07 rev.1, of August 10, 2007, paras. 11(2), 12 and 18(3)(3), approved at the same session by resolution CJI/RES.137 (LXXI-O/07), of August 10, 2010, second operative paragraph].” Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No.232, para. 112. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the way in which the pertinent arguments were indicated by the representatives (supra footnote 280 and infra footnote 346), in this case, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the right to identity together with the rights to juridical personality, to a name and to nationality. 315 Cf. OAS, "Inter-American Program for a Universal Civil Registry and ‘the Right to Identity,’” resolution AG/RES. 2286 (XXXVII-O/07) of June 5, 2007; Resolution AG/RES. 2362 (XXXVIII-O/08) of June 3, 2008, and Resolution AG/RES. 2602 (XL-O/10) of June 8, 2010. On this aspect, the Inter-American Juridical Committee considered that the American Convention on Human Rights, although it does not recognize the right to identity under this specific name, does include, as mentioned, the right to a name, the right to nationality, and the right to protection of the family. In this regard, cf. Opinion adopted by the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the scope of the right to identity, on August 10, 2007, paras. 11(2), 12 and 18(3)(3). This was cited in the Court’s judgment in the case of Gelman v. Uruguay (para. 123). 316 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 123. 317 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No.232, para. 112. 318 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, paras. 182 and 183, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 110. 319 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 184, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 192. 88