39 should allow itself the space to heal and, in turn, the community, because we see that this was the result of the war, the war affected the community where that family lived.”201 115. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 11(2) and 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin named in paragraph 34 supra. 116. That said, regarding the right to identity, the Court has established in its case law –specifically in the cases of Gelman v. Uruguay and Contreras et al. v. El Salvador- that this right “can be conceptualized, in general, as a collection of attributes and characteristics that allow for the individualization of a person in society. In that sense, it includes several other rights according to the subject of the rights in question and the circumstances of the case.”202 Thus, personal identity is intimately linked to a person’s specific individuality and private life, both of which are based on an historical and biological experience, and on the way in which each individual relates to others through the development of social and family ties.203 Moreover, the Court has recognized that identity is a right that encompasses several elements, including nationality, name and family relationships.204 In this regard, the Court recalls that the American Convention protects those elements as rights in themselves. However, not all of these rights will necessarily be involved in all cases linked to the right to identity. In the instant case, the impairment of the right to identity is reflected in arbitrary or abusive acts of interference in private and family life, as well as in its effects on the right to protection of the family and to enjoy family relationships. 117. Therefore, in the circumstances of the instant case, and taking into consideration the terms of the American Convention, interpreted in light of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the Court finds that the series of violations of the rights established in the American Convention that were analyzed constitute a violation of the right to identity, which is inherent to the human being according to Article 29 (c) of the American Convention, and is stipulated expressly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. C. Right to personal integrity of the next of kin C.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 118. Both the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of the disappeared children José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, owing to the suffering caused by their disappearance and the uncertainty regarding their fate or whereabouts. For its part, the State acknowledged the violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin, based on the findings contained in the Commission’s merits report (supra para. 20). C.2 Considerations of the Court Expert opinion rendered by Martha de la Concepción Cabrera Cruz before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on April 1, 2014. 201 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 122, and Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 123. 202 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 113, and Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 123. 203 204 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 122, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 112.