that she had died. Following the reunion, Rolando never acknowledged her as his mother. 150 86. It has also been proved that the child, Carmelino Ajanel Ramos, aged 5 at the time of the massacre, was also separated from his father, Antonio Ajanel Ortiz, for more than 20 years. At the time of the massacre, the child Carmelino was able to flee to the home of his maternal grandparents who also lived in the village and they were able to escape to another village, while his father, who had been injured, fled into the hills and, then, to Mexico. 151 The rest of the family (his mother, Elvira Ramos, and his four siblings, Josefina, Juana, Emilia and Carlos Antonio) were killed during the massacre.152 Father and son met up again in 2004 in the context of a meeting organized by FAMDEGUA,153 where they verified that everything that had happened had severely affected their family relationship. In this regard, Ajanel Ortiz stated that, when they met up again, his son did not call him “papa,” but rather “don Toño” and that his son reproached him saying that he was to blame for the death of his family.154 In this regard, expert witness Paula Worby stressed that, as a result of the forced displacement, “families were destroyed; grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, cousins, they were all dispersed, gone, and this also led to the loss of the social fabric of what had been a community.”155 87. Consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, the State’s omissive conduct in relation to the adoption of appropriate measures to enable a safe return and the corresponding family reunification, violated the rights of the family protected by Article 17 of the Convention, as of March 9, 1987, to the detriment of Elvira Arévalo Sandoval and of her children, Ernestina, Romelia and Rolando Hernández Arévalo, and also of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz and of his son Carmelino Ajanel Ramos. b.4. Rights of the child 88. Article 19 of the American Convention imposes on States the obligation to adopt the “measures of protection” required by their condition as children. The concept of “measures of protection” may be interpreted taking into account other provisions of the Convention and other international human rights instruments. This Court has indicated that “the interpretation of a treaty must take into account not only the agreements and instruments related to the treaty (paragraph 2 of Article 31 [of the Vienna Convention]), but also the system of which it is part (paragraph 3 of Article 31).”156 Therefore, in order to establish the meaning and scope of this article, the Court will take into account the international corpus juris for the protection of children and, in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As it has on other occasions,157 when analyzing and interpreting the scope of the provisions of the American Convention in the instant case in which the facts took place in the context of a non-international armed conflict, and pursuant to Article 29 of the American Convention, the 150 Cf. Statement made by Elvira Arévalos Sandoval on September 29, 2004 (evidence file, folio 6200). Cf. Notarized statement of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of July 9, 2003 (evidence file, folio 12), and Notarized testimonial statement Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of January 22, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23892). 151 Cf. Notarized statement of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of July 9, 2003 (evidence file, folio 12), and Notarized testimonial statement Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of January 22, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23892). 152 Cf. Notarized statement of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of July 9, 2003 (evidence file, folio 12), and Notarized testimonial statement of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of January 22, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23892). 153 154 Cf. Notarized testimonial statement of Antonio Ajanel Ortiz of January 22, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23892). 155 Cf. Expert opinion provided to the Court by Paula Worby during the public hearing held in this case. Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 113, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 83. 156 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 179, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 141. 157 28