124. The Court has considered that the family to which every child is entitled is, principally, his or her biological family, including the closest family members. Thus, it has maintained that that family must provide protection to the child and, in turn, be the main object of protection measures by the State. It has likewise pointed out that "there is no single definition of family, so that it must not be restricted to the traditional notion of a couple and their children, because other relatives may be entitled to family life, such as uncles, cousins, and grandparents, to name just some of the members of an extended family, provided they have close personal ties."145 The Court has established that “the term “family members or next of kin” should be understood in its broadest sense, including all those persons connected by a close relationship”.146 125. The Court has also pointed out, with respect to family life, that "children have a right to live with their family, which is called upon to satisfy their material, emotional, and psychological needs. This Court has also held that the mutual enjoyment of the cohabitation of parents and children is a fundamental element of family life. Accordingly, children should stay with their nuclear family, unless there are paramount reasons, based on their best interests, to opt for separating them from their family. In any event, the separation must be exceptional and, preferably, temporary."147 126. Regarding the right to protection of the child’s family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention, the Court has also underscored that “this means that the State is obliged not only to establish and directly execute measures for the protection of children, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, but also to encourage, in the broadest possible way, the development and strength of the family unit. Consequently, the separation of children from their family may constitute, in certain circumstances, a violation of said right to protection of the family, as even the legal separation of a child from his or her biological family is only applicable when duly justified in the best interest of the child, and is exceptional and, insofar as possible, temporary. In addition, given that during early childhood children exercise their rights through their next of kin, and that the family plays an essential role in their development, the separation of a minor from his biological parents may affect his right to personal integrity, contained in Article 5(1) of the Convention, insofar as it may jeopardize his or her development.”148 127. For its part, the IACHR has considered that the American Convention recognizes rights associated to family and family life free from unlawful interference in two provisions in its text, from different perspectives. On one hand, the American Convention in its Article 17(1) recognizes the right to protection of the family and in Article 11(2) it recognizes the right to a family life free from unlawful interference, which. it considers, "gives rise to an obligation to respect the right by prohibiting arbitrary or unlawful interference with the right to family life."149 128. In particular, regarding visits, the IACHR has held that “When restrictions are placed on the visitation system, an explicit reason should be provided for doing so, and a record of it should be made in the child’s file.”150 Additionally, in a related matter, and in the context of the precautionary measure proceedings, the IACHR has requested that the State “in keeping with the children’s’ interests and the protection they are due, immediately implement a system of visits under appropriate conditions, one that would guarantee the children’s access to their mother and extended family in an atmosphere that ensured that they could interact as normally as possible,” without unnecessary restrictions. The Commission also asked the State “to take measures to ensure that this system was implemented effectively throughout the international restitution process”; with specialized and I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, par. 163. 146 Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 62, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra note 49, para. 70; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, par. 98. 147 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, par. 151. 148 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011. Provisional Measures with Regard to Paraguay, Matter of L.M., par. 14. 149 The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54/13. October 17, 2013, par. 49. 150 The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative Care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54/13. October 17, 2013, par. 447. 145