38 196. In its analysis of the facts, the Commission has taken into account that the victims were civilians, 149 half of them children. Under Article 29(b) of the American Convention and as the Inter-American Court found in the Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3 common of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Agreements and the provisions of the additional Protocol to the Geneva Agreements regarding protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Due respect for the individuals protected entails passive obligations (not to kill, not to violate physical safety, etc.), while the protection due entails positive obligations to impede violations against said persons by third parties. Carrying out said obligations is significant in the instant case, insofar as the massacre was committed in a situation in which civilians were 150 unprotected in a non-international domestic armed conflict. 151 197. As regards the child victims, Article 38(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides, “States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child. Furthermore, Article 6 of the above Convention provides, “1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.” 198. With regard to the facts in the instant case and bearing in mind the armed conflict that framed them, the Commission finds it appropriate to apply Articles 6 and 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 152 as it has done in previous cases. In addition, the Commission notes that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions expressly forbids under any circumstances violence against “[p]ersons taking no active part in the 153 154 hostilities,” including children. For its part, Article 13 of Protocol II recognizes the principle of civilian 155 immunity as follows: 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances. 149 Article 29(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights – Restrictions Regarding Interpretation: “No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: […] b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party […]” 150 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 114. 151 Peru ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on September 4, 1990. Available at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en 152 See IACHR, Report No. 86/10, Case 12.649, Merits, Community of Rio Negro of the Maya Achi People and its Members, Guatemala, July 14, 2010, par. 256. 153 Peru ratified the Geneva Conventions http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P. on February 15, 1956. Available at 154 Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, Working Paper Nº 1, The Six Grave Violations Against Children During Armed Conflict: The Legal Foundation, October 2009, p. 5. 155 Peru ratified Protocol II to the Geneva http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P. Conventions on July 14, 1989. Available at