family unification established in international conventions, and specifically in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, they should have requested on their own behalf or through their legal representative, in this case their parents, refugee status in order to have the right to be heard in this immigration proceeding, a situation which never happened. In addition, regardless of whether or not they were refugees, children cannot be separated from their parents when they are expelled, because this would violate the child’s right to a family. In other words, it argued that the State had taken special measures of protection based on the principle of family unification in favor of Frida, Juana and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. B. Considerations of the Court 216. The Court will now analyze the presumed violations of the right to special protection of children, and the rights of the family of Frida, Juana and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, all of whom were minors when the facts of this case occurred, in light of the international corpus juris for the protection of children.248 217. As this Court has stated on other occasions, this corpus juris should serve to define the meaning and scope of the obligations that the State has assumed when analyzing the rights of the child.249 In this regard, children possess the rights established in the American Convention, in addition to the special measures of protection recognized in its Article 19, which must be defined according to the particular circumstances in each specific case. 250 The adoption of special measures for the protection of children corresponds to the State, as well as to the family, the community and the society to which they belong.251 218. In addition, any decision taken by the State, society or the family that entails any limitation to the exercise of any right of a child must take into account the principle of the best interests of the child, and be rigorously adapted to the provisions that govern this matter. 252 Regarding the best interests of the child, the Court reiterates that this governing principle of the normative on the rights of the child is based on the dignity of the human being, on the inherent characteristics of children, and on the need to foster their development, expanding their potential to the full. In this regard, it is necessary to weigh not only the requirement of special measures, but also the particular characteristics of the situation in which the child finds himself or herself.253 219. Article 19 of the Convention, in addition to granting special protection to the rights recognized therein, establishes a State obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized to children in other applicable international instruments. It is relevant to refer to Articles 12 and 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognize, respectively, the right of the child to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child,254 and the right 248 Cf. Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 242, para. 44, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 125. 249 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 44. 250 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 121, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 44. 251 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 62, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 45. 252 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 65, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 48. 253 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, para. 61, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 45. 254 “Article 12: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in 68