35 194. The Inter-American Court has noted the special obligations of Status with respect to children in the context of internal armed conflicts. In the words of the Court: Finally the Court notes that, within the context of an internal armed conflict, the State’s obligations toward children are defined in Article 4(3) of the Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocol II. This Article establishes that: “the children will be provided with the care and help they need, and, particularly: […] b) the timely measures to facilitate the reunion of the temporarily separated families will be taken […]”. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, this obligation has been defined as follows: “the parties to the conflict should do everything possible to reestablish family ties, that is, not only allow the members of the dispersed families to search for 157 their next of kin, but also facilitate this search.” 195. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has referred in previous cases to the corpus juris 158 on the human rights of the child . The Commission has previously addressed this concept in the following terms: For an interpretation of a State's obligations vis-a-vis minors, in addition to the provision of the American Convention, the Commission considers it important to refer to other international instruments that contain even more specific rules regarding the protection of children. Those instruments include the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the various United Nations declarations on the subject. This combination of the regional and universal human rights systems for purposes of interpreting the Convention is based on Article 29 of the American Convention and on the consistent practice of the 159 Court and of the Commission in this sphere . 196. Specifically, the Court held that both the American Convention and the Convention on the 160 Rights of the Child form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of the child that should help this Court establish the content and scope of the general provision established in Article 19 of the American Convention. Indeed, in various cases concerning children, the Court has relied on specific provisions contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child to interpret Article 19 of the 161 American Convention . 197. Therefore, the Commission believes it relevant to mention a number of provisions in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that have a bearing on the duty to provide special protection to children through the institution of the family. 198. Article 9 of said Convention provides: …continuación 191; and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005, par. 172. In the same connection: Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, pars. 56 and 60. 156 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa. Judgment of March 29, 2006, par. 154 157 I/A Court H.R., Case of “Las Dos Erres Massacre”. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Para. 191. Quoting. Commentary on additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 regarding the protection of the victims of armed conflicto that are not of an international character. Section B. Reunion of Families, para. 4553, Available at http/www.icrc.org. 158 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 159 160 IACHR, Report No. 41/99, Case 11.491, Minors in Detention, Honduras, March 10, 1999, par. 72. In this section, the Commission will make reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other instrumentos that are relevant in offerring intepretative elements on the State obligations in cases such as the instant case. Eventhough at the date of the beggining of the violations of the case, theses instruments had not been adopted, the IACHR will take them into consideration in the understanding of the continuing nature of these violations and fact that the State obligations continue over the time. 161 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 194; see also: Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, par. 148; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004, par. 166.