adopting as its own the recommendation for including the children in the adoptions program made by the very institution that drafted the majority of the reports. 179. By virtue of the considerations described above, the Commission concludes that both the initial decision of placement in an institution and the judicial declaration of abandonment did not fulfill the minimum substantive and procedural obligations that would allow them to be viewed as complying with the American Convention. As a result of this failure to fulfill said obligations, the Commission concludes that, in this proceeding, the state: i) violated the right to personal liberty, the rights to protection of the family and family life, and the right to be heard as set forth in Articles 7, 8.1, 11.2, and 17 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the Ramírez brothers; and ii) violated the rights to protection of the family and family life and the right to be heard, as set forth in Articles 8.1, 11.2, and 17 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Flor Ramírez and Gustavo Tobar. ii) Motion for review of the declaration of abandonment 180. The Commission will now analyze if the motion for review filed by Mrs. Ramírez against the abandonment declaration was in compliance with judicial guarantees or judicial protection with respect to the violations found in the previous section. 181. Mrs. Ramírez filed a motion for review, which was initially ruled inadmissible by the court’s decision of September 23, 1997. The Commission notes, first of all, that the processing of that remedy was marked by several irregularities vis-à-vis the terms of domestic law. 182. The IACHR notes that under Articles 138 and 139 of the Judiciary Law, the court must convene a hearing and, if the motion involves matters of fact, order the collection of evidence. However, no hearing was convened and the court requested no evidence. On the contrary, even though Mrs. Ramírez’s filing necessarily involved matters of fact regarding the grounds for the declaration of abandonment, the court merely summoned the office of the Attorney General to hear its position and simply referred to information related to the declaration of abandonment which was already in the case file and which has already been ruled incompatible with the American Convention. 183. Neither did the court request that Mrs. Ramírez give a statement or that Mr. Tobar appear. Similarly, the Commission notes that the court did not request that the children be examined or that their testimony be taken—in particular, that of Osmín Tobar Ramírez, who was seven years old at the time. 184. The court also refrained from examining the documents presented by Mrs. Ramírez during her children’s abandonment proceedings, which addressed the medical attention given to her children and the state of their health and education. Neither did the court rule on the claims alleging the lack of credibility of the neighbors’ statements, including the actions of her neighbor Delmy Arias and her alleged ties with a network of irregular adoptions. The Commission notes that no formalities were pursued to remedy the evidentiary omissions of the earlier reports, such as identifying the names of the neighbors who had purportedly given statements, for example. Neither was Mrs. Delmy Arias summoned in order for Mrs. Ramírez’s allegations to be investigated. The IACHR also notes that the court failed to rule on the admissibility or otherwise of Mrs. Ramírez’s application to visit her children during their institutionalization. The Commission also notes that the court did not rule on the request of Mrs. Ramirez to visit her children while they were institutionalized, in order to remove any unnecessary restriction of the children’s right to maintain the link with their family. 185. In addition to those omissions, the Commission observes that Mrs. Ramírez was not notified of the court’s order of August 25, 1997, which opened the processing of her motion for review and summoned the Attorney General’s office—and no other deponents—to the hearing. The IACHR highlights the fact that the court itself acknowledged that omission and the violation of her right to be heard when it stated that “an error was committed by failing to notify the person who had filed the remedy.” In addition, the court acknowledged that Mrs. Ramírez’s “right of defense was affected” and therefore resolved to void all the 38