guardianship and adoption proceedings. Furthermore, the said official did not determine the existence of any of the circumstances established in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as a case “involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents,” which would have permitted, exceptionally, the separation of the father from his daughter. 122. Moreover, in addition to the separation of father and daughter, made official with the judgment in which the legal guardianship was awarded to the couple B-Z for one year and, subsequently, in the adoption proceedings, no measures were taken to establish ties between Mr. Fornerón and his daughter, despite the fact that the judicial decisions on guardianship and adoption determined this possibility.93 In November 2001, the biological father filed a lawsuit to establish a visiting regime. However, and with the exception of an agreement between the parties before the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos in May 2011 (supra para. 42), there is no record that, in more than 11 years, a visiting regime had been established by the courts that would have established ties between father and daughter. 123. Lastly, the Court recalls that Article 8(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child indicates that “States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.” The Court has recognized the right to identity, which can be conceptualized, in general, as a series of attribute and characteristics that allow the individualization of the person in society and, in this regard, include several other rights according to the subject of law in question and the circumstances of the case.94 Personal identity is closely related to the person in his or her specific individuality and private life, both supported by a historical and biological experience, and also by the way in which the said individual relates to others, by developing social and family ties. This is why, although identity is not a right that is exclusive to children, it has special importance during childhood.95 The circumstances of this case signified that M grew up from birth with the B-Z family. This fact meant that the personal, family and social development of M occurred within a family other than her biological family. In addition, the fact that, in all these years, M has not had any contact or ties with her family of origin has not allowed her to create the family relationships that correspond to her by law. Consequently, the impossibility of M to grow up with her biological family and the absence of measures aimed at establishing a relationship between father and daughter affected the right to identity of the child M, in addition to her right to the protection of the family. 124. Based on the above, this Court concludes that the State violated the right to protection of the family recognized in Article 17(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Fornerón and of his daughter M, as well as in relation to Article 19 of this treaty with regard to the latter. E. Domestic legal effects i) Considerations of the Commission 93 Cf. Judgment of the first instance judge of May 17, 2001, supra note 31, folio 19; Judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, supra note 38, folio 243, and Judgment of the first instance judge of December 23, 2005, supra note 48, folio 4761. 94 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra note 49, para. 122, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 232, para. 113. 95 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 94, para. 113. 35