59 integrity, recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the fifteen victims indicated above (supra para. 187). 190. The Court also concludes that the State is responsible of the violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the fifteen civilians who were taken into the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine and then riddled with bullets and their bodies dynamited. The Court considers that this violation was further aggravated in relation to the seven children and the pregnant woman. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention and in accordance with the Court’s recent case law, 215 in this case the Court considers that the fifteen victims (supra para. 187) were placed in a situation of legal uncertainty that prevented them from effectively exercising their rights in general terms, which in turn entailed a violation of their right to recognition of juridical personality. 191. The Court reiterates that those cases in which the victims of human rights violations are children are especially serious, 216 since children are not only entitled to the rights established in the American Convention, but also to the special measures of protection contemplated in Article 19, which must be interpreted according to the particular circumstances of the specific case. 217 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, 218 and includes measures related to non-discrimination, the prohibition of torture, and the conditions that must be observed in cases in which children are deprived of liberty. 219 192. In the instant case, where at least seven of the victims were children between the ages of 8 months and 6 years, the violation of their rights was also configured in relation to Article 19 of the American Convention. In this regard, the Court notes that the CVR’s Final Report found that, “within the militaristic mindset, the death of children was a ‘cost’ to eradicate the insurgency”, and “in the struggle to destroy the enemy it did not matter that the dead [were] innocent [people] and even less so children.” 220 It is a proven fact that an attempt was made to conceal the real ages of the child victims in this case in the death certificates issued by order of the judge of the Sixth Permanent Military Tribunal of Ayacucho of February 25, 1992, which indicated that they were older than 18 years of age (supra paras. 107 and 173). Thus, the State once again disregarded its duty to ensure the special protection of children. 193. Lastly, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to conclude the alleged violation of Articles 11 and 17 of the American Convention in this case, in the terms set forth by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 148, 151 and 154). 194. In conclusion, the Court finds that Peru has incurred international responsibility for the forced disappearance of the fifteen victims: Yesenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, Edith Osnayo Hilario, Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Hilario, Raúl Hilario Guillén, Héctor Hilario Guillén, Francisco Hilario Torres, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui, Antonia Hilario Quispe, Magdalena Hilario Quispe, Dionicia Guillén Riveros, Ramón Hilario Morán Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 101, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 323. 216 The Inter-American Court has considered that, in general terms, a child is defined as “any person who has not yet turned 18 years of age.” Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 42, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013, paras. 67 and 140. 217 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No.221, para. 121, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 141. 218 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 62, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 141. 219 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 168, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 150. 220 Cf. Final Report CVR, Volume VI, Chapter 1.8, pages 596 to 597 (evidence file, folios 2060 to 2061). 215