47 there [he] took him to his house, registered [him] in Santa Cruz Muluá-Retalhuleu, with his surnames.” 169 164. Therefore, the Court considers that the claims related to the alleged violation of Articles 17, 18, and 19 of the Convention to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, are based on the factual background of the application submitted by the Commission. 165. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Convention, the Court notes that although this Article was not claimed by the representatives in the proceeding before the Commission, the Court has established in its constant jurisprudence that this does not necessarily constitute “an impairment or breach of the State’s right to defend itself, which has the procedural opportunity to respond to the allegations of […] the representatives in all stages of the proceeding before the Court. Finally, it is the Court’s responsibility to decide in each case on the admissibility of the claims of this nature so as to safeguard the procedural equity of the parties.”170 166. In the instant case, the Court observes that the alleged violation of Article 18 is based on the name change of child Ramiro, from Ramiro Osorio Cristales to Ramiro Fernando López, after his abduction and illegal retention by a kaibil who participated in the massacre. These facts were indicated by the Commission in its application, and the representatives referred to them (supra para. 162 and 163). Additionally, the Court verified that the State had the opportunity to refer to that claim on several procedural occasions. However, the State did not submit specific arguments on this alleged violation, limiting itself to questioning the Court’s jurisdiction (supra para. 32), and in the hearing it only referred to the alleged activities performed in 1999 to locate Ramiro Osorio Cristales, along with FAMDEGUA. 167. Consequently, the Court considers that the lack of a claim on Article 18 in the proceeding before the Commission has not affected the procedural equity of the parties, or impaired the States’ right to defend itself, as it has had the opportunity to submit its arguments and evidence throughout the proceeding before this Court. 168. Before analyzing the alleged violation of the rights of the family, right to a name, and rights of the child recognized in Articles 17, 18, and 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales, the Court deems it necessary to analyze the context of the violations claimed, and to review the facts so as to provide the context of the factual situation of the instant case. 1. A) Context and background Existence of a systematic practice 169. The representatives claimed that “the concrete facts of the case were part of a systematic practice of violations committed against children during the internal armed conflict of Guatemala.” 169 Statement of Ramiro Fernando López García as evidence produced before trial of February 11, 1999, rendered before the Judge of the First Departmental Instance (Appendixes to the Application, judicial file, pieces VI to XIII. Appendix 29, f. 3827 to 3828). 170 Cf. Case of the " Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia, supra note 19, para. 58; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 32, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 135.