402. CEJIL alleged the violation of Article 17 to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, adducing that the significant distance between his family home and community and the detention center where he was confined made it impossible to receive visits from his wife and children, and their emotional support, and this was aggravated by the State’s refusal to transfer him to a prison nearer to his community. The FIDH did not allege the violation of this article in relation to the other victims. 403. Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was confined in the “El Manzano” Prison in Concepción, situated more than 250 kilometers from Temuco where his community and family were located. From the onset of his imprisonment, both Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe and his lawyer raised the issue of the need to transfer him to a prison nearer to his place of residence. In addition, his wife, Karina Prado, requested her husband’s transfer to the Temuco prison, owing to the obstacles to travelling with her five children to Concepción to visit her husband and their father, and the high costs involved. However, the Concepción Court of Appeal denied Mrs. Prado’s request and the subsequent request by Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe without justifying the denial and without taking into consideration a report of the Chilean Prison Service indicating that there were “no problems for the inmate [… to be] transferred to the Temuco prison, because the individual mentioned lives and has family support in that city” (supra paras. 139 and 141). This situation had a negative influence on the frequency of the visits and the contact that Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe had with his family, increasing his feelings of concern and helplessness, as well as the deterioration of his relations with the members of his family.393 404. The Court has established that the State is obliged to encourage the development and strength of the family unit.394 It has also asserted that this entails the right of everyone to receive protection from arbitrary or illegal interference in his or her family,395 and also that States have positive obligations in favor of effective respect for family life.396 The Court has also recognized that the mutual enjoyment of coexistence between parents and children is a fundamental element of family life.397 405. In the case of persons deprived of liberty, rule 37 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners recognizes the importance of the contact of prisoners with the world outside when establishing that “[p]risoners shall be allowed under 393 Víctor Ancalaf’s wife, Karina Prado, testified that: “[t]he first three years when we travelled to Concepción were very difficult and complicated, because in order to go with the five children, [she] needed to pay for three adults and sometimes she did not have the money; sometimes she went alone and had to leave them in someone’s care. […] Concepción is […] eight hours away.” Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by Karina del Carmen Prado Figueroa (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 84). Similarly, his son, Marías Ancalaf Prado, testified about “[h]ow far away the prison was” and indicated that “[a]t one time it was more difficult to go, around the middle of my father’s imprisonment, then our visits were less frequent; we went every two months; sometimes only two siblings went with my mother. It was a matter of money; my mother didn’t have enough to pay for the travel costs of so many children and for herself; it was complicated to travel with all her children. Every time we went to visit my father it cost a lot of money and the financial situation, the time, everything was difficult.” Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by Matías Ancalaf Prado (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 30 and 31). See also: Psychological and psycho-social report on presumed victim Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and family prepared by expert witness Ruth Vargas Forman (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 96, 97, 100, 107 and 108). 394 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 66, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, para. 226. 395 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 72, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, para. 312. 396 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 189, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 225. Also, ECHR, Case of Olsson v. Sweden No. 1, No. 10465/83. Judgment of 24 March 1988, para. 81. 397 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 47, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 225. Also, ECHR, Case of Johansen v. Norway, No. 17383/90. Judgment of 7 August 1996, para. 52, and Case of K. and T. v. Finland, No. 25702/94. Judgment of 27 April 2000. Final, 12 July 2001, para. 151. 134