34 child as every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier (Article 1). The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes every child’s intrinsic right to life and provides that no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy and recognizes the child’s right to the protection of the law against such arbitrary or unlawful interference or attacks (Article 16). The States parties are to ensure that no child is subjected to torture or any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 151. The Inter-American Court has written that: “[i]n the light of Article 19 of the American Convention, the Court wishes to record the particular gravity of the fact that a State Party to this Convention can be charged with having applied or tolerated a systematic practice of violence against at181 risk children in its territory.” 152. Furthermore, the Convention of Belém do Pará provides that the States Parties shall take special account of the vulnerability of women to violence by reason of, among others, their minor age, as 182 well as other conditions that expose them to greater risk of having their rights violated. The IACHR has written that this provision is the result of the fact that the various forms of discrimination do not affect all women to the same degree: some are more vulnerable than others to violations of their rights and to acts 183 of violence and discrimination. 153. Given this framework of international responsibility, the State’s obligations under the instruments of the inter-American human rights system have special connotations where children are concerned. The Inter-American Court observed that children “have the same rights as all human beings […] and also special rights derived from their condition, and these are accompanied by specific duties of 184 the family, society, and the State.” Moreover, their status requires special protection that must be understood as an additional right that complements all the other rights that the Convention recognizes to 185 each individual. Hence, the State must take special measures to protect children with special care and 186 a sense of responsibility that serve the principle of the best interests of the child. 154. The Court has observed that the prevalence of the best interest of the child must be understood as the need to satisfy all the rights of children and adolescents, which obligates the State and 187 affects the interpretation of all the other rights of the Convention when a case concerns minors. Furthermore, the State must pay special attention to the needs and rights of women owing to their 188 condition as girls who, being women, belong to a vulnerable group. 181 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 191. 182 Article 9, Convention of Belém do Pará. 183 IACHR, Las Mujeres Frente a la Violencia y la Discriminación Derivadas del Conflicto Armado en Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/II. 124/Doc.6, October 18, 2006, paragraph 140. 184 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraph 54. 185 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 408. 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraphs 124, 163-164, and 171; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraphs 126 and 134; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraphs 146 and 191. See also, I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraphs 56 and 60. 187 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 408; I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraphs 56, 57 and 60, and, I/A Court H.R. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005 of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 134. 188 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 408; CEDAW, General Recommendation 24: Women and Health, 20th session, A/54/38/Rev.1, 1999, paragraph 6, and I/A Court H.R. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Continúa…