proceedings prior to that date. 186. The Commission therefore notes that although the courts found that Mrs. Ramírez’s right of defense had been impaired, the authorities continued with the proceedings without providing due judicial protection against the violations incurred in determining the Ramírez brothers’ legal situation. This can be seen in the fact that after issuing that acknowledgment, the court did not convene an ex officio hearing to hear the position of the Ramírez brothers’ parents, nor did it request that the omitted evidence be gathered. On the contrary, the IACHR notes that the court rejected Mrs. Ramírez’s request to submit evidence. The Commission also sees that at least two judges attempted to recuse themselves from the proceedings without due grounds, which contributed to the delay in processing the remedy. 187. In response to Mrs. Ramírez’s various requests, the new judge assigned to the case ruled the motion for review groundless by means of an order dated January 6, 1998, and later requested that it be sent to the archive. The Commission points to the same irregularities that were detected in the order of September 23, 1997, in that: (i) no hearing was held, nor was the evidence reception process opened; (ii) the decision was based exclusively on information in the case file for the children’s declaration of abandonment; (iii) Mrs. Ramírez’s various claims regarding the situation of her children, the lack of credibility of the neighbors’ testimony, and the irregularities in the social reports prepared by the Attorney General’s office and the Child Care Residence were not taken into account; and (iv) no statements were taken from Mrs. Ramírez, Mr. Tobar, or the Ramírez brothers to assess them in accordance with their maturity. 188. In consideration whereof, the Commission concludes that the motion for review, up to the time of the adoption, allowed the violations already established to continue, failed to provide an effective remedy, and failed to ensure minimum guarantees of due process, and that accordingly, the State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection set forth in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1.1 thereof, with respect to Osmín Tobar Ramírez and J.R. In addition, the Commission concludes that in its processing of this remedy, the State violated the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection set forth in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Flor Ramírez and Gustavo Tobar. 2.2. Regarding the adoption process and the remedies filed i) Adoption process 189. The Commission draws attention to the concern expressed by various international agencies regarding the legislation in force for the adoption of children at the time of the facts. In particular, the IACHR notes that the extrajudicial adoption process did not require thorough investigations, procedures, or formalities, nor was it subject to obligatory judicial review. On the contrary, the process lacked the minimum procedural safeguards to ensure that all the possible alternatives were explored prior to proceeding with the adoption and to ensure the parents’ presence and that their declaration of consent was given in accordance with the described standards. In addition, the process did not require that the children be heard or that their opinions be taken into account in accordance with their level of maturity. Neither did it provide for an individual appraisal of the suitability of the potential adoptive parents vis-à-vis the specific needs of the child. 190. The Commission notes that these problems in the regulations and practices governing adoptions at the time of the facts were clearly at play in the case at hand. 191. The IACHR notes that the extrajudicial adoption process began with an application made by the attorneys of the adoptive families and notaries in Guatemala. The Commission also notes that the report from the Attorney General’s office ruled that the adoption could not proceed because a motion filed by Mrs. Ramírez was still pending resolution. Nevertheless, after the adoptive families had filed an appeal against that decision with the judiciary, the court in charge of the case ruled the adoption of the Ramírez brothers to be admissible. 39