53 Convention, to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, the Court must examine whether these generate international responsibility for the State. 2. Rights of the family (Article 17), Right to a name (Article 18), and Rights of the Child (Article 19) 184. Regarding the rights of the child enshrined in the Convention, the Court has established that children have special rights which correspond to specific obligations of the family, society, and the State. Additionally, their condition demands special protection by the latter, which must be understood as an additional right and complementary to the other rights recognized to all persons under the Convention.204 The prevalence of the best interests of the child must be understood as the need to satisfy all of the rights of the child, which binds the State and affects the interpretation of all other rights contained in the Convention when the case refers to minors.205 Likewise, the State must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of children, considering their particularly vulnerable condition. 185. Likewise, the Court has established on repeated occasions, through the analysis of the general rule enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, that the State is obliged to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein, and to organize the public authorities so as to guarantee to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights206. This obligation not only assumes that States will refrain from inferring inadequately the rights guaranteed in the Convention (negative obligation), but also, in light of their obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, requires that the States adopt all necessary measures to protect and preserve the rights (positive obligation)207 of all those subject to its jurisdiction. 186. In view of the foregoing, the Court notes that at the time when the State recognized the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction, Ramiro Osorio Cristales was a child208. Consequently, the State owed him special, additional, and complementary measures of protection, so as to guarantee the enjoyment and exercise of his rights, including the right to a family and right to a name. Consequently, the Court will analyze the alleged violation of Article 19 of the Convention along with the other violations claimed. * * * 204 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 27, para. 53, 54 and 60; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005, Series C No. 130, para. 133, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 113. 205 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 204, para. 56, 57 and 60, and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic, supra note 204, para. 134. 206 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 30, para. 165 to 167; Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 97, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 142. 207 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 30, para. 164; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 109, para. 80, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 75. 208 The Court takes cognizance that at the time of the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction in 1987, Ramiro and Armando were 11 and 16 years old, respectively, hence the Court will refer to the alleged victim as children. Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC17/02 supra note 203, para. 42.