46 191. In 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 atrisk children in its territory. When States violate the rights of at-risk children, such as “street children”, in this way, it makes them victims of a double aggression. First, such States do not prevent them from living in misery, thus depriving them of the minimum conditions for a dignified life and preventing them from the “full and harmonious development of their personality”33, even though every child has the right to harbor a project of life that should be tended and encouraged by the public authorities so that it may develop this project for its personal benefit and that of the society to which it belongs. Second, they violate their physical, mental and moral integrity and even their lives. 192. This Court has said that “when interpreting a treaty, not only the agreements and instruments formally related to it should be taken into consideration (Article 31.2 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system within which it is (inscribed) (Article 31.3)”34. In accordance with this position, the Court has also declared that by means of an authoritative interpretation, the member States of the Organization have signaled their agreement that the [American] Declaration contains and defines the fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter [of the Organization]. Thus, [the latter] cannot be interpreted and applied, as far as human rights are concerned, without relating its norms […] to the corresponding provisions of the Declaration35. 193. The Court has previously indicated that this focus is particularly important for international human rights law, which has advanced substantially by the evolutive interpretation of international protection instruments. On this point, this Court has understood that [t]his evolutive interpretation is consequent with the general rules of the interpretation of treaties embodied in the 1969 Vienna Convention. Both this Court […] and the European Court [...] have indicated that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve over time in view of existing circumstances.36 194. Both the American Convention and the Convention on the 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. 195. The Convention on the Rights of the Child contains various provisions that relate to the situation of the “street children” examined in this case and, in relation with Article 19 of the American Convention, it throws light on the behavior that the State should have observed towards them. These provisions appear below: 33. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Preamble, para. 6. 34. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 113. 35. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 43. 36. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance, supra note 34, para. 114.