38 which of these the acknowledgment applies to. Similarly, the Court notes that the Commission asserted the violation of the right to identity and a name only with regard to Gregoria Herminia Contreras, while the representatives did so with regard to Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, and José Rubén Rivera Rivera based on specific reasons they gave, among which they mentioned that the systematic practice of forced disappearance which existed at the time included changing names, and that the other cases fit perfectly into that pattern. Thus, it is necessary to make the pertinent clarifications and to establish to whose detriment these rights have been violated. 105. First, it is important to clarify that, in the instant case, the arguments concerning the right to identity must be analyzed in the context of the forced disappearance of children by State agents during the armed conflict in El Salvador and their subsequent appropriation. One of the objectives of these actions was to suppress or eliminate the identity of children of families considered “guerrillas” (supra para. 53), with no certainty in all cases about the children’s subsequent whereabouts or fate. 106. The Court has already established in its case law that the separation of children from their family constitutes, under certain conditions, a violation of their right to a family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention.149 In this regard, it is important to recall that the Court has also indicated that “children have a right to live with their families, which are called on to meet their material, affective and psychological needs.”150 Also, under Article 11(2) of the Convention,151 everyone has the right to receive protection against arbitrary or illegal interference with their family,152 especially children, given that the family plays an essential role in their development.153 107. In this context, it the State should have Convention, with specific child.154 Thus, from the is important to determine which special and distinctive measures taken in keeping with its obligations under Article 19 of the attention to the holder of the right and to the best interest of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which violation of the right to a name of the alleged victims in this case as an element of the right to identity, as well as for the violation of the right to be subject to special measures of protection. 149 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 71; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 125, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 157. 150 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 149, para. 71; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 157, and Case the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 188. 151 Article 11(2) of the Convention stipulates that: “[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 152 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 149, para. 71; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 156, and Case the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 150, para. 188. 153 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 149, para. 71; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 130, and Case the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 150, para. 188. 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. 154 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 149, para. 56; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 257, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 164.