(supra para. 13), it was taken into account that the three girls were then aged 12, 13 and 17 years of age and that there might be differences in their views and in the level of personal independence for each of the girls to exercise her rights. In the instant case, the Court heard two of the girls on February 8, 2012. (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 69. During the hearing, the Secretariat staff was accompanied by the psychiatrist María Alicia Espinoza80. Prior to commencing the proceeding, the delegation of the Secretariat of the Court held a prior meeting with the psychiatrist, consisting of an exchange of ideas, in order to ensure that the information provided was accessible and appropriate for the girls. Taking into account the international standards on a child’s right to be heard (infra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. to ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), the girls M. and R. were, in the first place, informed jointly by the staff of the Secretariat of their right to be heard, the effects or consequences that their opinions might have in the dispute in this case, the position and arguments of the parties in the present case. They were also asked whether they wished to continue participating in the proceeding. Subsequently, instead of conducting a unilateral examination, a conversation was held with each girl separately, in order to provide the girls with an appropriate environment of trust. During the proceeding neither of the parents and neither of the parties were present. Furthermore, the proceeding conducted with the girls was private, due to the request, both by the Commission and by the representatives in this case, that the identity of the girls remain confidential (supra note 3), and to the need to protect the girls’ best interest and their right to privacy. In addition, the girls expressly requested that everything said by them during the meeting be kept in the strictest confidence. 70. During the proceeding of February 8, 2012, the girls M. and R. said they were aware of and understood the matters related to the three alleged violations in which they were presented as alleged victims in the present case (infra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). From the statements made by the two girls and bearing in mind the progressive nature of children’s rights, the Court noted that the two girls had expressed freely and independently their own views and judgments regarding the facts of the case that concern them, as well as some of their expectations and interests in the resolution of this case. Therefore, the Court shall consider them as alleged victims in the case at hand (infra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 71. As mentioned previously, the girl V. did not participate in the hearing for reasons of force majeure (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). Based on the preceding considerations, the Court finds no grounds to consider that the girl V. is not in the same situation as her sisters (infra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). However, for the purposes of reparations, the competent national authority for children must privately confirm the girl V’s free opinion regarding whether she wishes to be considered as an injured party. 80 In its brief of February 3, 2012 the State presented its observations concerning the participation of the psychiatrist Espinoza in the proceeding. On February 6, 2012, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the parties were informed that psychiatrist Espinoza had been designated to accompany the delegation of the Secretariat, if necessary. Likewise, the record sent to the parties indicated that although the support of psychiatrist Espinoza had been contemplated in this case, this was not necessary. 25