protection of the family, 90 because even legal separations of a child from his or her biological family are only admissible when they are duly justified by the best interests of the child, exceptional and, insofar as possible, provisional91 (supra para. 47). 117. According to the Court’s consistent case law, for the restriction of a right to be compatible with the American Convention, it must fulfill several requirements, among others and above all, it must be based on law. In this case, the guardianship procedure and subsequent adoption of the child M were regulated by, among other norms, the Civil Code, a law in the formal and pertinent sense. 118. Despite the foregoing, this Court has determined that the legal guardianship, which culminated in the adoption of M, was awarded without observing certain legal requirements, such as the consent of the biological father, and the absence of verification of the other conditions established in article 317(a) of the Civil Code, among others provided for under domestic law (supra paras. 79 to 86). Consequently, the interference in the right to protection of the family of Mr. Fornerón and of his daughter M did not meet the requirement of the legality of the restriction. 119. Furthermore, the Court considers, as indicated by expert witness García Méndez during the public hearing in this case, that the right of the child to grow up with his or her family of origin is of fundamental importance and is one of the most relevant legal criteria derived from Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, as well as from Articles 8, 9, 18 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Hence, the family to which every child has a right is, first and foremost, the biological family,92 which includes the closest family members, who should provide protection to the child and, in turn, should be the principal subject of measures of protection by the State. Consequently, in the absence of one of the parents, the judicial authorities are obliged to seek the father or mother or other members of the biological family. 120. In particular, Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that: 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence. […] 2. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests. 121. In this case, the requirement of the exceptional nature of the separation was not met. The judge who awarded the legal guardianship and subsequent adoption, did not take into account Mr. Fornerón’s wish to take care of his daughter and not to continue separated from her. He did this despite the fact that the biological father expressed this wish explicitly and repeatedly to different authorities and, particularly, to the said official during the 90 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17, supra note 51, paras. 71 and 72, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra note 50, para. 169. 91 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17, supra note 51, para. 77, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra note 49, para. 125. 92 Cf. Opinion of expert witness García Méndez provided during the public hearing. 34