65 Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international instrument that expressly recognizes the right to identity. Its Article 8(1) indicates that “States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as acknowledged by law without unlawful interference.” From the regulation of the norm contained in the Convention on Rights of the Child, it can be deduced that identity is a right that encompasses several elements, including nationality, name and family relationships, included in the said article in a descriptive but not restrictive manner. In the same way, the Inter-American Juridical Committee has underlined that the “right to identity is consubstantial to human attributes and dignity,” and an autonomous right, possessing “a central nucleus of clearly identifiable elements that include the right to a name, the right to nationality, and the right to family relationships.” In fact, “it is a fundamental human right opposable erga omnes as an expression of a collective interest of the international community as a whole, which admits neither annulment nor suspension in the cases 287 established in the American Convention.” 307. In particular, as regards the content of this right, the Commission maintained that “international human rights law recognizes the existence of a right to an identity that is associated with other rights, such as the right to a name, to nationality, to a family, and to maintain family relations, all of 288 which are included in the American Convention”. 308. The Court, for its part, concluded that “the right to identity 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, in includes several other rights according to the subject of the rights in question and the circumstances of the case.” Thus, personal identity is intimately linked to the person in his or her specific individuality and private life, both of which are based on an historical and biological experience, as well as the way in which each individual relates with others through the development of social and family ties. Moreover, it is important to stress that, although identity has special importance during childhood as it is essential for the development of a person, the truth is that the right to identity is not exclusive to children, because it is constantly evolving and the interest of individuals in maintaining their identity and preserving it does not diminish with the passage of time. In addition, the right to identity can 289 be affected by numerous situations or contexts that can take place from childhood to adulthood.” 309. Regarding the right of the children to be heard, the Court held that the right to judicial guarantees enshrined in article 8.1 of the American Convention must be interpreted in the light of the right 290 to be heard enshrined in article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and citing the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Court indicated that an adequate application of the principle of the best interest of the child enshrined in article 3 is not possible unless elements of the right to be heard enshrined in article 12 are respected; and that the principle of the best interest of the child enshrined in 287 I/A Court H.R., Case of Contreras et. al vs. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of August 31, 2011. Series C. No. 232, para. 112. 288 IACHR, Application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Gregoria Herminia Contreras et. al vs. El Salvador, June 28, 2010, para. 217. 289 I/A Court H.R., Case of Contreras et. al vs. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of August 31, 2011. Series C. No. 232, para. 113. 290 The Court held that in order to determine the scope of the terms described in article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child established certain specifications, namely: (i) one cannot begin with the assumption that a child is incapable of expressing her or his own views, (ii) it is not necessary that the child has comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the matter affecting her or him, but that she or he has sufficient understanding to be capable of appropriately forming her or his own views on the matter, (iii) the child can express her or his views without pressure and can choose whether or not she or he wants to exercise her or his right to be heard, (iv) the child be informed about the matters, options and possible decisions to be taken and their consequences by those who are responsible for hearing the child, and by the child’s parents or guardian. The child must also be informed about the conditions under which she or he will be asked to express her or his views, (v) the capacity of the child, which has to be assessed in order to give due weight to her or his views, or to communicate to the child the way in which those views have influenced the outcome of the process, (vi) maturity should be measured in relation to the capacity of a child to express her or his views on issues in a reasonable and independent manner. I/A Court H.R., Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 24, 2012. Series C N° 239, para. 239, citing Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment N° 12, paras. 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30.