applicable to children with disabilities. 231. In this respect, expert witness Moreno stated that: “the level of contact, immediacy, of the Court with the parties is, maybe, a bit damaged, hindered, as from the existence of a written procedure which does not allow to concentrate, obviously, all petitions and have personal contact, which in the case of children – and vulnerable groups- is essential, as provided for in article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and also the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as a necessary obligation 376 of the judge or court to make direct contact .” 232. From the evidence on file, the Court notes that Sebastián Furlán was not directly heard by the judge presiding over the suit for damages. On the contrary, the evidence on file indicates that Sebastián Furlán personally appeared twice before the court, but he was not heard on those occasions (supra para. 88 and 90). Specifically, the Court notes that: i) On May 8, 1997, Sebastián Furlán and his attorney appeared before the settlement hearing, 377 but there was no representative of the EMGE, and therefore the hearing was cancelled and Sebastián Furlan was not heard, and ii) the court did not receive the cross-examination 378 evidence, through which Sebastián Furlán’s statement was to be received. Given that Sebastián Furlan was not heard at any stage of the proceeding, the judge was not able to consider his opinions on the matter and, more especially, confirm his specific situation as a person with a disability. 233. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court considers that the right to be duly heard embodied in Article 8(1), in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of the American Convention, was violated to the detriment of Sebastián Claus Furlán. E.2. Lack of participation of the Juvenile Defender’s Office Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 234. The Commission argued that the State did not explain “the absence of the Juvenile Defender’s Office [Asesor de Menores e Incapaces] [...] during the seven years of the proceeding in which Sebastián was a child and during the rest of the proceeding, once his disability was established.” It indicated that “the lack of intervention of the Juvenile Defender’s Office – which is binding under domestic legislation – resulted in the lack of adoption of special measures of protection for Sebastián Furlán and the control of the proceeding in order to conduct it within a reasonable time.” 235. The representatives alleged that “the Juvenile Defender’s Office should have intervened from the very beginning of the case, upon confirmation that the best interests of a minor were at stake, even more so in this case which involved a child with a mental disability”. They pointed out that the Juvenile Defender’s Office “could have taken […] several steps […], namely: specify the object of damages; require early judicial protection of the required treatments; monitor the evidence and present observations on it; appeal the lower court judgment as to the concurrent liability finally decided and the amount of 376 377 Statement by expert witness Gustavo Daniel Moreno at the public hearing held on February 27, 2012. Cf. Record of May 8, 1997 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 198). 378 Cf. Record of appearance at cross-examination hearing issued by Secretary 18 of the National Court for Federal Civil and Commercial Matters N° 9 on February 12, 1998 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 469). 74