their life plans with dignity. 148 This should extend to reparations, which should be ordered in such a way as to avoid perpetuating gender stereotypes, instead reflecting the ways the searching women want to be represented. 149 111. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that Article 11 of the Convention establishes that every person has the right to have their honor respected, prohibits unlawful attacks on honor or reputation, and imposes on States the duty to provide legal protection against such attacks. In broad terms, the right to have honor respected relates to self-esteem and self-worth, whereas reputation refers to the opinion other persons have about someone. 150 The Court has declared this right violated in cases in which it was proven that the State had subjected individuals or groups to hatred, stigmatization, public scorn, persecution, or discrimination through public statements by government officials. 151 112. The proven facts in this case, the arguments of the representatives and the Commission, and the State’s acknowledgment, make clear to this Court that different government officials have maintained the account that serviceman Tabares Toro attacked his superiors and joined the guerrillas, specifically Front 53 of the FARC (supra paras. 18, 42, 50, 51, 95, 96, and footnotes 28 and 42). This led to blame, stigmatization, and insecurity for the family due to the lack of an official response to what happened to the victim. For the relatives of Mr. Tabares Toro, this has affected family development and prompted interference in their private lives, which has harmed their honor and dignity in violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 113. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention, the Court has found that the family—without defining a particular model for it—is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. In view of the importance of this right, the Court has found that the State has an obligation to support the development and strengthening of the nuclear family. It is therefore required to take both positive and negative actions to protect persons from arbitrary or illegal interference with their families and foster effective respect for family life. 152 At the same time, the Court has understood that among the most severe interference that the State could engage in against the family are actions that result in separation or division. This situation is especially grave when the breakdown affects the rights of children and adolescents. 153 The status of such persons, pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention, necessitates special protection by the State. 154 114. The representatives in this case stated that for security reasons, on several occasions, María Elena Toro and her family had to relocate because of a fear of retaliations or of some threat being carried out. This prompted María Elena Toro, her daughter María Isabel Gallego Toro, her son-in-law, and two grandchildren to flee Colombia recently. One other family member had already left the country previously. All of this shows the uprooting and breaking up of the family, which harmed the family because of the distances separating them. 148 According to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, “Women as family members, particularly where they become household heads due to an enforced disappearance, are in specific material, financial, psychological and legal needs. The relevant governmental institutions must provide them adequate counselling, rehabilitation and support services, assistance and information.” Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on women affected by enforced disappearances adopted by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances at its ninety-eighth session (31 October – 9 November 2012) A/HRC/WGEID/98/2, February 14, 2013, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 181. 149 Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 181. 150 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 57, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2022. Series C No. 481, para. 106. 151 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 286, and Case of Valencia Campos al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 255. 152 Cf. Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, paras. 98 and 99, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 148. 153 Cf. Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, paras. 98 and 99, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 183. 154 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 53, 54, 60, 86, 91, and 93, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 183. 27