227. In addition, in certain circumstances the separation of children from their parents may endanger their development and survival, which must be ensured by the State as established in Article 19 of the Convention and in Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially by the protection of the family and the absence of illegal and arbitrary interference in the family life of children, because the family plays an essential role in their development. 266 Also, the participation of children acquires special relevance in the case of proceedings that may be of a punitive nature, in relation to an infringement of the immigration regime, opened against migrant children or against their family, their parents, representatives, or those accompanying them, because this type of proceeding may lead to the separation of the family and the subsequent impairment of the child’s well-being, regardless of whether the separation occurs in the State that expels them or in the State to which they are expelled. 228. Based on these criteria, the Court considers that, in this case, the children had the right to special protection of their guarantees of due process and to the protection of the family in the administrative proceedings that resulted in their expulsion and that of their parents. Thus, the Court notes that the authorities should have considered Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo to be an interested or active party in these proceedings, because it was evident that the conclusions or results could affect their rights or interests. Thus, irrespective of whether a specific request for asylum was presented on their behalf, owing to their migratory situation and their circumstances, the State had the obligation to ensure their best interests, based on the principle of non refoulement and on the principle of family unification, which required the State’s immigration authorities to be especially diligent in exhausting all available means of obtaining information to determine their migratory situation and to adopt the best decision for them as regards the State to which it was appropriate to send them in case of expulsion. However, there is no record in the decisions of the prosecutor or of SENAMIG that the interests of the children were taken into account, even minimally. In other words, the State treated the children as subjects, conditioned by and limited to the rights of their parents, which harmed their status as subjects of law267 and the meaning of Article 19 of the American Convention. 229. In conclusion, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to protection of children and of the family recognized in Articles 19 and 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 8(1), 22(7), 22(8), 25 and 1(1) of this instrument to the detriment of Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. VII-4. OBLIGATION TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW AND PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND NON-RETROACTIVITY (ARTICLES 2 AND 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the parties 266 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, paras. 66 and 71. Similarly, Article 16 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador” establishes that “[e]very child has the right to grow under the protection and responsibility of his parents; save in exceptional, judicially-recognized circumstances, a child of young age ought not to be separated from his mother.” 267 The consideration of children as real “subjects of law” is a new paradigm established by international human rights law and has been recognized by different international courts, as well as constitutional courts and supreme courts of the region. In this regard, see, in general, Court of Justice of the European Union, C-356/11 and C-357/11, Judgment of 6 December 2012, paras. 75 to 82; Constitutional Court of Colombia, Case of Raquel Estupiñon Enriquez, on her own behalf and in representation of her two minor children, files an application for amparo v./Decision 230 of the Administrative Department of Security, Judgment T-215/96, of May 15, 1996; and Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, application for amparo, filed by Edwin Zumbado Duarte, in favor of Noemi Cruz Izaguirre, against Director General of Immigration and Aliens’ Affairs, Judgment of December 5, 2008. 71