G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT also Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 72). Nonetheless, certain factors have been considered relevant for the assessment of the content of those positive obligations on States. Some of them relate to the applicant. They concern the importance of the interest at stake and whether “fundamental values” or “essential aspects” of private life are in issue (see Hämäläinen, cited above, § 66; and X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91), or the impact on an applicant of a discordance between the social reality and the law, the coherence of the administrative and legal practices within the domestic system being regarded as an important factor in the assessment carried out under Article 8 (see Hämäläinen, § 66; and Christine Goodwin, §§ 77-78, both cited above). Other factors relate to the impact of the alleged positive obligation at stake on the State concerned. The question here is whether the alleged obligation is narrow and precise or broad and indeterminate (see Hämäläinen, cited above, § 66), or about the extent of any burden the obligation would impose on the State (ibid., § 66). In choosing how to comply with their positive obligations, States enjoy a broad margin of appreciation (see Lozovyye v. Russia, cited above, § 36). Where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake, the margin allowed to the State will be restricted (see, for example, X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 24 and 27, and Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 90). 116. In this respect, the Court notes that, as pointed out by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (see paragraph 80 above), birth registration involves not only the declaration of the occurrence of the birth to civil registrars and the official recording of the birth by civil registrars, but also the effective issuing of a birth certificate, the document which constitutes evidence of the State’s legal recognition of the child. 117. According to well-established case-law, in all decisions concerning children their best interests are of paramount importance (see Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 287, 8 April 2021; see also Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 96, ECHR 2010; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013). This reflects the broad consensus on this matter, expressed notably in Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (see paragraph 81 above). (b) Application of the above principles to the present case 118. The Court would start by noting that, as evidenced in its case-law cited above, obstacles in obtaining birth registration and lack of access to identity documents resulting from those obstacles can have a serious impact on a persons’ sense of identity as an individual human being. In addition, the lack of birth registration and valid identity documents can cause significant problems in a person’s daily life, in particular at the administrative level (see M. v. Switzerland, no. 41199/06, § 57, 26 April 2011; see also, mutatis mutandis, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 96, ECHR 31