and therefore custody was awarded to the Asociación Los Niños de Guatemala (Guatemala Children's Association) so they could be included in its adoption program. The State maintained that, among the different proceedings conducted, (i) statements were taken from Flor de María Ramírez Escobar and Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo; (ii) statements were obtained from relatives and witnesses; and (ii) the social worker and psychologist who handled the case was ordered to conduct a study to determine wither the parents provided a suitable family, emotional, and psychological environment for the boys. 22. As for the adoption proceedings, the State alleged that they were conducted according to the domestic laws in effect at the time. It stated that, in view of the unfavorable opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of Guatemala with respect to the adoptions of the Ramírez brothers, the Trial and Family Court of Sacatepequez acted in accordance with the law when it found that the boys’ adoption was proper based on the final and unappealable declaration of abandonment. 23. The State indicated that on August 31, 2001, the presiding court ordered that a letter rogatory be sent to the Embassy of the United States of America to request that the two families who adopted the Ramírez boys be summonsed to appear so that the children can resume contact with their parents. It maintained that Mr. Gustavo Tobar Fajardo was given notice of the order and asked to state whether he was amenable to paying the expenses that would be incurred to summons both families. The State indicated that Mr. Tobar’s response “was not specific in terms of the expenses that would be incurred by the rogatory to summons the boys’ adoptive parents.” It maintained that Mr. Tobar subsequently failed to appear at a hearing related to that request. It stated that, in view of the situation, the case was ordered to be shelved on September 19, 2002. 24. The State alleged that there was no unwarranted delay of justice. It maintained that each one of the appeals filed was adjudicated promptly and in accordance with domestic law. It added that the petitioners did not continue to pursue the case or to exhaust the proceedings available in the case. 25. The State asserts that it did not fail to comply with its obligation to enact domestic law provisions consistent with the American Convention, and described several measures adopted to implement the relevant international rules on adoption and the prevention of child trafficking. Furthermore, it enumerated the draft bills and legislative and administrative measures adopted by Guatemala on the subject. 26. The State reported on the advances made with regard to the adoption laws in Guatemala. It cited the enactment of the 2003 Law for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents and the 2007 Adoption Law, which are consistent with the guiding principles on adoption and the rights of the child. It maintained that adoption proceedings are now conducted in accordance with the provisions of those laws and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with priority given to the best interests of the child. The State referred specifically to the prohibition against for-profit adoptions and stated that the entire process must be transparent. 27. The State reiterated that the petitioners failed to exhaust the appropriate domestic remedies. It stated that the case was therefore currently in a “shelved” status in the Guatemalan courts, for reasons attributable to the petitioners, who, in the State’s opinion, did not take the proper actions during the proceedings. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS A. Established facts 1. Adoption laws at the time of the events 28. At the time of the events at issue in this case, adoptions in Guatemala were regulated by either a judicial or extrajudicial proceeding. The judicial adoption procedure was governed by the 1963 Civil 4