35 they held that, based on a systemic approach to psychological traumatology, it has been proven that forced disappearance is a form of trauma that severely damages family ties, provokes emotional chaos and is passed on involuntarily and unconsciously to the following generations, affecting family life. They affirmed that, in addition to those generations that directly experienced the traumatic situation, future generations will also suffer from the breaking of those ties. Therefore, they argued that the State continues to fail in its obligation to guarantee and restore the right to protection of the family, given to the lack of investigation, prosecution, punishment and reparation for the violations committed against the families. 103. The State acknowledged its responsibility for violating Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, as determined in the merits report of the Commission (supra para. 20). B.2 Considerations of the Court 104. Article 17 of the American Convention recognizes that the family is the fundamental unit of society and must be protected. Hence, the family to which every child has a right is, first and foremost, his or her biological family, which includes the closest family members, who should provide protection to the child and, in turn, should be the principle subject of measures of protection by the State. 177 The Court has already pointed out that the State has the obligation not only to order and directly implement measures to protect children, but also to favor, in the broadest sense, the development and strengthening of the family nucleus,178 given that the mutual enjoyment of the coexistence between parents and children constitutes a fundamental element of family life.179 In its case law, the Court has already established that the separation of children from their families constitutes, under certain conditions, a violation of the right to a family.180 105. The Court has also specified that Article 11(2) of the American Convention,181 which recognizes the right of every person to receive protection against arbitrary or abusive interference in his family life, is an implicit part of the family’s right to protection.182 106. For its part, Article 19 of the Convention establishes the obligation to adopt special measures of protection for all children, based on their condition as minors, and this has an impact on the interpretation of all the other rights established when the case relates to children. Thus, the Court has considered that the protection due to the rights of children, as subjects of law, must take into Cf. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 119, and Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014. Series A. No. 21, para. 272. 177 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 66; Case of Chitay Nech v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment 25 May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 157, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 414. 178 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra, para. 72; Case of the 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 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 414. 179 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 187, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 414. 180 181 Article 11. Protection of honor and reputation […] 2. No 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. Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 170, and Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, supra, para. 265. 182