48 separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action. 196. These provisions allow us to define the scope of the “measures of protection” referred to in Article 19 of the American Convention, from different angles. Among them, we should emphasize those that refer to non-discrimination, special assistance for children deprived of their family environment, the guarantee of survival and development of the child, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the social rehabilitation of all children who are abandoned or exploited. It is clear to the Court that the acts perpetrated against the victims in this case, in which State agents were involved, violate these provisions. 197. The file contains documentary references to the fact that one of the three children in this case, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, was registered in the “criminal archives” of the Identification Office of the National Police Force. In this respect, the Court considers that it is relevant to stress that, if the State had elements to believe that “street children” are affected by factors that may induce them to commit unlawful acts, or has elements to conclude that they have committed such acts, in specific cases, it should increase measures to prevent crimes37 and recurrence. When the State apparatus has to intervene in offenses committed by minors, it should make substantial efforts to guarantee their rehabilitation in order to “allow them to play a constructive and productive role in society”38. In this case, it is clear that the State seriously infringed these directives. 198. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1.1, to the detriment of the minors, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales. XII Violation of Articles 25, 8 and 1(1) (RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND A FAIR TRIAL) 199. In the application, the Commission stated that Guatemala had violated Articles 25, 8 and 1.1 of the Convention to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, because when a protected right has been violated “the State is obliged to respond sua sponte with specific investigative measures, actions aimed at punishing and penalizing the perpetrators and mechanisms that guarantee access to compensation” and, “[a]t the 37. Cfr. United Nations directives for the prevention of juvenile delinquency (Riad Directives). Adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 45/112 of 4 December 1990, Chapter III, para. 9. 38. Cf. United Nations Minimum rules for the administration of justice for minors (“Beijing Rules”). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 40/33, of 29 November 1985, Fifth Part, Treatment in prison establishments, para. 26.1