44 230. Consistent with the above-described context, the Commission notes that the massacres to which this case refers were committed precisely during the bloodiest period of the misnamed “counterinsurgency” operations conducted on a massive scale against civilians by the Salvadoran army during the armed conflict, in open disregard of the most basic principles of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. As described in the previous section, the systematic and generalized nature of those actions, the purpose of which was to sow terror among the population, has been recognized on several occasions, and it may be concluded that the massacres constituted one of the most aberrant manifestations of crimes against humanity committed at that time by the Salvadoran military. 231. In light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of El Salvador is responsible for violating the rights to life and humane treatment of the persons executed extrajudicially in El Mozote, La Joya, Ranchería, Los Toriles, Jocote Amarillo, Cerro Pando and the Cerro Ortiz cave. The Commission considers, furthermore, that the State of El Salvador is responsible for violating the right to personal liberty of the victims extrajudicially executed in the village of El Mozote. 232. The names of the victims extrajudicially executed who have been identified to date are included in the Annex to this report. 233. The Commission notes that the petitioners made mention in one of their submissions of the disappearance of 16 children during the massacres. However, the petitioners did not provide any factual details or evidence in this respect. While it is known that the perpetrators of mass executions such as those committed in this case also engaged in the abduction of children, the Commission does not have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on this point. C. The special duty to protect children (article 19 of the Convention in relation with article 1.1 thereof) 234. Article 19 of the Convention declares: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society and the State. 235. Article 1.1 of the Convention declares: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 236. According to jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, article 19 of the American Convention must be understood as an additional and complementary right established by the Treaty for 256 persons who, in light of their physical and emotional development, require special protection . Children, then, have in addition to the human rights that correspond to all persons some special rights deriving from their condition, and these entail specific duties on the part of the family, the society and the State. That is 257 to say, children must be accorded special measures of protection. 256 I-A Court, Masacres de Ituango vs. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 106; Baldeón García vs. Perú. Judgment of 6 April 2005. Series C No. 147, para. 244; Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Merits, Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 152; and especially: “Instituto de Reeducación del Menor” vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 2 September 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 147 and Servellón García et al. vs. Honduras. Judgment of 21 September 2006, para. 113 257 In its Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, the Court held that “Adoption of special measures to protect children is a responsibility both of the State and of the family, community, and society to which they belong.” See I-A Court, Judicial status and human rights of the child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A, no. 17, para. 62.