48 armed conflict in Peru, 173 in breach of Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the seven forcibly disappeared children, and that it declare that the State incurred in aggravated responsibility, given the existing context of human rights violations against children. 154. Finally, the representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to protection of the family, established in Article 17 of the Convention. They also added that the State violated the right to private and family life contained in Article 11 of the Convention, since it prevented the victims - permanently and irreversibly- from establishing relationships with their family group and with the persons who form part of it. Finally, they alleged non-compliance with the duty to guarantee due to the lack of a proper investigation of the facts to the detriment of the disappeared victims, and the State’s interference “aimed at preventing a serious and effective investigation.” 155. The State legally classified the facts of this case as extrajudicial executions, acknowledged the violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the American Convention, but disputed the possible violation of Article 3 thereof, arguing that it is not a case of forced disappearances. It also argued that it is not acceptable for the Commission to attempt to apply Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1977 immediately and opposed the representatives’ demand that the State be declared to have “aggravated responsibility.” On the other hand, the State pointed out that the right to protection of the family has not been the subject of debate in the domestic courts, and that although there is a final conviction of one person, it could not be concluded from the process followed in the domestic courts that there was a deliberate act on the part of the State to affect entire family groups. 156. Furthermore, at the public hearing and in its final written arguments, the State requested the application of the principle of subsidiarity and complementarity of the inter-American system in the instant case. It argued that in the case of Zulema Tarazona et al. v. Peru the application of this principle meant that the Court did not rule on the merits of the dispute, but rather came closer to “a preliminary ruling on the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case.” It also recalled that, in the case J. v. Peru, the Court indicated that the legal classification of the facts was a matter for the State. According to Peru, the events that occurred in the community of Santa Bárbara on July 4, 1991, which are the same facts submitted to the consideration of the Court, were the subject of an investigation, trial, punishment and determination of reparations by the domestic courts through the judgment issued by the National Criminal Chamber on February 9, 2012, and the ejecutoría suprema of May 29, 2013, which constituted a final judgement with the character of res judicata and of a binding nature. It argued that the competent national organs for the administration of justice are the ones called upon to legally classify such acts and, in the present case, that is precisely what the national courts did, since neither the Commission nor the representatives questioned the legal classification established by the national jurisdictional bodies after the case was reopened in 2005. Accordingly, it held that it is not appropriate for the Court to determine and declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights contained in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the Convention, based on an unrestricted respect for the principle of subsidiarity or complementarity in the inter-American system. B. Considerations of the Court 157. In the instant case, the events that took place in the peasant community of Santa Bárbara on July 4, 1991, which have been established and are not in dispute, were investigated, prosecuted and punished by the State through the judgment of February 9, 2012, of the National Criminal Chamber of Lima’s Superior Court of Justice and the final judgment of May 29, 2013 of 173 The representatives alleged that in the present case Articles 1 and 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Geneva Conventions and the II Additional Protocol to these should serve to define the content and scope of the protection required under Article 19 of the ACHR.