- 105 - part, the State indicated that the protection measures that the juvenile judge could order were regulated by the Family Courts Act, “which was the law applied when the facts of the case occurred.” Article 12 of this law established that: “[t]he family courts have discretionary powers. They shall ensure that the weakest party in the family relationship is duly protected and, to this end, they shall order the measures they deem pertinent. In addition, they are obliged to investigate the truth in any disputes that arise, and to order the evidentiary procedures they deem necessary, even questioning the parties directly concerning the disputed facts; and they shall assess the value of the evidence in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. Pursuant to the spirit of this law, when a judge finds it necessary to protect the rights of a party, before or during the processing of the proceedings, they may – on receiving a petition or a communication from one of the parties – determine any type of precautionary measures, and these shall be ordered without further processing and without the need to provide a surety.” Family Courts Act. Decree-Law No. 206, May 7, 1964 (evidence file, folio 7955). According to the State, this law “authorized the judge to order any type of measure he deemed pertinent in order to safeguard, protect and ensure the best interests of the child,” and it was not correct to limit the applicable measures of protection to just one law out of the whole structure of the domestic legal order. In this regard, the representatives underlined that the law cited by the State referred to “the measures that the family courts with jurisdiction to hear “all matters relating to the family” could order, and not to those “measures that the juvenile judge who had jurisdiction to hear ‘cases of children in an irregular situation” could order. The Court notes that the decisions based on which Osmín Tobar Ramírez was placed in institutional care were issued by a juvenile court rather than a family court (supra paras. 90 and 101), and there is no record in the placement decision, or in the decision on abandonment that ordered the institutionalization, that this measure was ordered based on the said law, rather it was based on the provisions of the Children’s Code. Cf. Communication of the First Juvenile Trial Court of January 27, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4384), and Ruling of the First Juvenile Trial Court of August 6, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4303 and 4304). 543 Cf. Children’s Code. Decree No. 78-79 of November 28, 1979, art. 42 (evidence file, folio 3447). Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention. Concluding observations: Argentina, October 9, 2002, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.187, para. 40. The Court also notes that places where children in need of protection are institutionalized cannot be the same as those for children in conflict with the law. Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Childs, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention. Concluding observations: Antigua and Barbuda, November 3, 2004, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.247, para. 41. 544 In this regard, article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that: “States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.” 545 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1), UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/14, May 29, 2013, paras. 25 and 31. See also, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention. Concluding observations: Guatemala, July 9, 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.154, paras. 24 and 25. 546 Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 20. See also, UNICEF, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Fully revised third edition, 2007, p. 282. 547