Jean who was still there and also forced him to get into a bus (supra para. 223). Regarding members of the Medina Ferreras family, in November 1999 or January 2000 during the early morning hours, State officials from Pedernales went to their home and took them, together with other people, to the “Oviedo prison” (supra para. 201). Lastly, regarding the Fils-Aimé family, State agents went to the family home on November 2, 1999, where they found Janise Midi and her children Antonio, Diane and Endry Fils-Aimé; the agents obliged them to leave the house, forced them to get into a truck, and took them to the “Pedernales Garrison” (supra para. 210). 427. In view of the fact that the above-mentioned interferences in the homes of the Jean, Medina Ferreras and Fils-Aimé families were not justified, because they were not in keeping with the procedure established by domestic law, the Court finds that they should be considered arbitrary interferences in the private life of these families, in violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention. Furthermore, they were linked to acts that involved a violation of the obligation to respect rights without discrimination (supra paras. 400 to 407). 428. These arbitrary interferences were particularly grave in the case of the children involved. Given their special situation of vulnerability, the State had the obligation to adopt special measures of protection in their favor under Article 19 of the Convention. However, the facts reveal that, despite the presence and special needs of the children, in the case of the three families, the State agents did not allow them to get dressed or to take anything with them. In the case of the Jean family, they were not allowed to take milk for Natalie Jean, who was approximately four months (supra para. 223). B.3. Conclusion 429. Based on the foregoing, in the terms indicated (supra para. 418), the Court concludes that the State violated the right to protection of the family, recognized in Article 17(1) of the Convention, in relation to its failure to comply with the obligation to respect the treaty-based rights without discrimination established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Bersson Gelin and William Gelin, and also in relation to the rights of the child, recognized in Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of the child, William Gelin. In addition, in the terms indicated (supra para. 420), the Court finds that the State violated its obligation related to the right to protection of the family, recognized in Article 17(1) of the Convention, in relation to its failure to comply with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Antonio Sensión, Ana Virginia Nolasco, Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión, and also in relation to the rights of the child, protected in Article 19 of this treaty, to the detriment of children at the time, Ana Lidia Sensión and Reyita Antonia Sensión. 430. In addition, as indicated (supra paras. 427 and 428), the Court considers that the State violated the right to privacy, owing to the violation of the right not to be the object of arbitrary interference in private and family life, recognized in Article 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to its failure to comply with the obligation to respect rights without discrimination established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Markenson Jean, Victoria Jean (deceased), Miguel Jean, Natalie Jean, Willian Medina Ferreras, Lilia Jean Pierre, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Jeanty Fils-Aimé (deceased), Janise Midi, Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé and Endry Fils-Aimé, and in addition in relation to the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the children Victoria Jean (deceased), Natalie Jean, Markenson Jean, Miguel Jean, Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina (deceased), Diane Fils-Aimé, Antonio Fils-Aimé and Endry Fils-Aimé. 136