Fornerón and of his daughter, as well as the protection of the rights of the child of the latter (supra paras. 66 and 106). 110. The denial of access to justice relates to the effectiveness of the remedies, because it cannot be considered that a remedy that exists in a State’s laws but that does not decide the litigation filed for an unjustified delay in the proceedings is an effective remedy.87 111. The judicial remedies filed by Mr. Fornerón did not provide an effective and appropriate response to protect his right and that of his daughter to the protection of the family and to the rights of the child of M. Consequently, the State violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 17(1), 8(1) and 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Fornerón and of his daughter M, as well as in relation to Article 19 thereof to the detriment of the latter. D. Protection of the family i) Considerations of the Commission 112. Regarding the presumed violation of Article 17 de la Convention, 88 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, the Inter-American Commission indicated, inter alia, that children have the right to live with their biological family; the right of a father or mother to live with his or her child is a fundamental element of family life, and the domestic measures that prevent this, constitute an interference with a right protected by Article 17 of the Convention. The decision to separate a child from its family must be made in keeping with the law, a requirement that was not met in this case, because Mr. Fornerón had indicated his opposition to the guardianship, and there is no record that a declaration of incapacity had been made that would have avoided this requirement or compliance with the other requirements of article 317 of the Argentine Civil Code. Consequently, the State’s decision to grant judicial guardianship and, subsequently, adoption, contrary to the wish of the biological father and without respecting the other legal requirements, constituted “an unlawful restriction of the right to a family” of Mr. Fornerón and his daughter. This decision, taken without ensuring due “access of the father to the child,” not only interfered in the exercise that the Convention guaranteed them of their family rights, but also entailed the risk that affective ties would be established over time that would be difficult to reverse without causing harm to the child. 113. In addition, the Commission affirmed that the State had not taken the necessary measures to implement an appropriate visiting regime, so that the child has been deprived of her right to have access to various aspects of her identity, to have information that was important for her development, and to establish ties with her biological family. The family relationships and the biological aspects of the history of an individual, particularly a child, constitute a fundamental element of his or her identity, so that any act or omission of the State that has an effect on the said components can constitute a violation of the right to identity. In this regard, the conduct of the domestic authorities who granted the guardianship and the adoption engaged the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights to a family and to identity. It concluded that the State’s decision to 87 Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 88. Cf. also Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58. 88 The pertinent part of Article 17 of the American Convention establishes: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. 32