31 the cluster bomb the survivors and wounded were attacked by helicopter “Harpy”. 126 In that regard, the manner in which the massacre was executed through an attack with a cluster bomb of the aforementioned magnitude, after which the surviving victims were attacked as they sought to escape, constituted a threat to the lives of all 27 individuals who were wounded. The fact that 27 people were wounded and not killed is merely fortuitous.127 For these reasons, in addition to the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, the Commission considers that Article 4 of the American Convention also applies with regard to the 27 people who were wounded in the bombing. 120. The Commission has further proven that six children were killed and nine others were wounded as a result of the bombing of the village of Santo Domingo with a cluster munition. By the Court’s case law, Article 19 of the American Convention should be understood as a complementary right that the Convention establishes for individuals who need special measures of protection, owing to their stage of physical and emotional development. 128 The Commission recalls that where children are concerned the principle of their best interests is paramount, a fact based on their special characteristics as children, the need to encourage their development taking full advantage of their potential, and the dignity of the individual. 129 The rights of children must be safeguarded both in view of their status as human beings and by reason of their special condition, to which end special protective measures must be adopted. This added obligation to provide protection 130 and these special duties should be regarded as determinable based on the needs of the child as a person with rights. 131 …continuación 12, 2003, the CTI carried out a targeted launch of two cluster munitions, which made it possible to confirm: “i) that the precision of these devices is limited, given that only one of the bombs that comprised them hit the paved road, the predetermined target, while the rest fell on either side of the road, with one even falling many meters away from the rest; and, ii) that they have enormous antipersonnel power, as could be seen by the cloud of dense, black smoke that arose when the bombs hit and fragmented into countless pieces of shrapnel that spread out in all directions, passing right through wooden structures and even metal markers, leaving craters in the ground and oxidized tails similar to those found in the judicial inspection conducted on December 17, 1998, in the village of Santo Domingo.” 126 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 47. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163, pars. 127 and 128. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 106; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2005. Series C, No. 147, par. 244; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 152; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 147; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006, par. 113. 129 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 244. See, also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 134; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. the Dominican Republic Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C, No. 130, par. 134; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C, No. 125, par. 172. 130 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 160; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110, pars. 124, 163164, and 171; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100, par. 126 and 134; and I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, pars. 146 and 191; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005, par. 172. See, Continúa…