215. In view of all the considerations, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for violating the right to life of Hildo Ambrosio Trino, Andrés Miranda Clemente, Lorenzo Leman Bonaparte, Bernardo Julián Trino, José Trino Pérez Nacril, Rómulo Flores Henríquez, and Amilton Bonaparte Clemente, established at Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 3.3 On the child Licar Méndez Gutiérrez 216. The Commission established in the facts proven that on December 12, 2003, Licar Méndez Gutiérrez, 16 years of age at the time, was working as a boatman (cayuquero) on a fishing vessel. According to the documentation produced and not controverted by the State, Licar Méndez was abandoned in a small canoe (cayuco) by the owner of the vessel as punishment. When the owner returned hours later he did not find him. To date, the whereabouts of Licar Méndez remain unknown. 217. Article 19 of the American Convention312 established the right of children to “special measures of protection, which … should be interpreted, in consideration of … the specific circumstances of each case.”313 Those measures correspond to both the State and to the family, the community, and the society to which the child belongs. 218. The Inter-American Court has indicated “the particular gravity” of cases in which “the victims were … children.” 314 This is because, in view of their level of development and vulnerability, they require protection to ensure the exercise of their rights.315 In this regard, “[a]ctions taken by the State and by society regarding protection of children and promotion and preservation of their rights should follow [the criterion of the best interests of the child].”316 219. Article 32(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child317, a treaty that is part of the corpus juris of the rights of the child, establishes: States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. 220. As regards state obligations vis-à-vis the worst forms of child labor, the Inter-American Court has indicated that priority measures should be adopted to do away with them including, among others, designing and implementing action programs to ensure the full exercise and enjoyment of children’s rights. It also indicated: … specifically, the State has the obligation to: (i) prevent the employment of children in the worst forms of child labor; (ii) provide the direct assistance that is necessary and adequate for freeing children from the worst forms of child labor and ensuring their rehabilitation and social insertion; (iii) ensure for all children who have been freed from the worst forms of child labor access to basic education at no cost, and, when possible and appropriate, professional Article 19 of the American Convention: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 313 I/A Court HR. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 121. 314 I/A Court HR. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 146. 315 I/A Court HR. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 144. 316 I/A Court HR. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 133. 317 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted: November 20, 1989. Came into force: September 2, 1990. Ratified by Honduras August 10, 1990. See: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en 312 38