225. Article 17 of the American Convention recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Given the importance of the right to protection of the family, the Court has established that the State is obliged to promote the development and strengthening of the family unit. 215 It has also affirmed that it implies the right of every person to receive protection against arbitrary or illegal interferences in their family,216 and that States have positive obligations to ensure effective respect for family life.217 The Court has also recognized that the mutual enjoyment of coexistence between parents and children constitutes a fundamental element of family life.218 It has also established that, in certain circumstances, separating children from their families constitutes a violation of their right to a family recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention.219 226. In addition, the Court emphasizes that, in September 1996, Mateo Vélez Román was four years and eight months old and Juliana Vélez Román was 18 months old. This Court has understood that, pursuant to Article 19 of the American Convention, the State is obliged to promote special measures of protection in keeping with the principle of the best interests of the child,220 assuming its position of guarantor with increased care and responsibility,221 based on their special condition of vulnerability. 222 The Court has established that children have special rights that correspond to specific duties for the family, society, and the State. Furthermore, their condition demands special protection from the latter that must be understood as an additional right, complementary to the other rights that the Convention recognizes to every individual.223 The State also has the obligation to adopt all positive measures to ensure the full exercise of the rights of the child.224 215 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 116. 216 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 71, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 189. 217 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 189. Also, cf. ECHR. Case of Olsson v. Sweden (No. 1), March 24, 1988, para. 81, Series A no. 130. 218 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 72, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 47. Also cf. ECHR. Case of Johansen v. Norway, August 7, 1996, para. 52, 1996-III, and ECHR. Case of K and T v. Finland [Grand Chamber], No. 25702/94, para. 151, 2001-VII. 219 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 71, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 116. 220 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 60; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 116, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 55. 221 Cf. Case of the "Children’s Rehabilitation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 160, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 55. 222 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, paras. 60, 86, and 93; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 184, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 55. 223 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, paras. 53, 54, and 60; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 113, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 45. 224 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 91; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 114, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 55. 66