and the state specific duties.165 This Court has repeatedly emphasized the existence of a “very comprehensive corpus juris of international law for the protection of the rights of children [and girls],” which must be used as a source of law by the Court to establish “the content and scope” of the obligations that the States have assumed through Article 19 of the American Convention with respect to children, particularly when specifying the “protection measures” referred to in the aforementioned provision.166 The Court has already highlighted that, when it comes to the protection of the rights of children and the adoption of measures to achieve such protection, the following four guiding principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child must be seen as cross-cutting in their focus and be implemented in every comprehensive protection system: the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of the best interest of the child, the principle of respect for the right to life, survival and development, and the principle of respect for the child’s opinion in any procedure that affects them, in order to guarantee their participation.167 97. Furthermore, the status of being a child requires special protection that must be understood as an additional and supplementary right to the other rights recognized in the American Convention for every person. The prevalence of the child’s best interests must be understood as the need to satisfy all the rights of children and adolescents, creating an obligation for the State and effects that influence the interpretation of all the other rights of the Convention for cases involving children.168 The best interest of the child constitutes a mandated priority that applies both at the time of interpretation and when making necessary decisions in situations where the rights are in conflict.169 The best interest of the child will be shaped by listening to them and weighing the rights involved, through an argument that gives preponderance to the rights of the child in the specific case.170 98. This Court has understood that, in accordance with Article 19 of the American Convention, the State is obliged to promote special protection measures guided by the principle of the best interest of the child, undertaking its position of guarantor with greater care and responsibility considering their especially vulnerable condition.171 Children’s best interest is based on human dignity itself, on their own characteristics, and on the need to promote their development.172 In turn, Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that in all measures concerning children taken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the child’s best interests will be a primary consideration taken into account. In relation to this principle, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that “every legislative, administrative and judicial body or institution is required to apply the best interests principle by systematically considering how children’s rights and interests are or will be affected by their decisions and actions - by, for example, a proposed or existing law or policy or administrative action or court decision, including those which are not directly concerned with children, but indirectly affect children.”173 Cf. Juridical condition and human rights of the child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 54, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, paras. 171 and 190. 165 166 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 192 to 194, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 171. 167 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 172. Cf. Case of Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012, para. 120, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 190. 168 169 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 192. 170 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 192. Cf. Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 104, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 187. 171 172 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 56, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 187. Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 5: General measures for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 4, 42 and Article 44, paragraph 6), CRC/GC/2003/5, November 27, 2003, para. 12; Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 56, and Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 188. 173 31