indicated that the child was emotionally unstable, distressed, anxious, tense, and in an extremely vulnerable state, with gastrointestinal disorders, sleep disorders, and signs of depression. The board mentioned that complying with the return judgment “is deemed unfeasible from a psychological standpoint owing to [D.’s] extremely vulnerable mental state,” maintaining that the child manifested deep family roots. The report also indicated that the restoration of ties between D and his father should take place in a pressure-free context, “and free from factors perceived by [D.] as negative and of risk, so that positive feelings may develop. In this specific case experience has sufficiently shown that a relationship cannot develop when one of the parties views the situation as a threat and that events deemed negative might occur. If that situation is relieved, the prospects for father-son ties are better.”68 70. On March 7, 2017, the Defender for Children and Adolescents and the Public Defender as a contributor, on behalf of D., requested application of the precautionary measure for the child to remain in the country. On March 31, 2017, the Caacupé Juvenile Court admitted the precautionary measure for the child to remain in Paraguay, deciding, therefore, that D. would continue to live at his customary place of abode in the city of Atyrá, Paraguay. The Court took into consideration Article 3 of Law 1.680/2001 regarding the child’s best interests, Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention (noting in particular Article 13.b on grave risk of physical or psychological harm or if the [“]child[”] objects to being returned). It considered that his customary place of abode at present was the city of Atyrá, Paraguay, and that since over 11 years had gone by without it having been possible to implement the August 14, 2006 judgment, “[events have] given rise to other rights as the result of the child remaining in our country since the age of two, because he is now fully rooted in Paraguayan society,” as shown in the documents “[D.] S/ International Return,” taking into account the report of the psychologists board (citing the report that allegedly refers to “grave risks to his psychological well-being and even his health (…) a change of residence would severely harm his already broken psychological health”, emphasizing that “they may even jeopardize his will to live”) and the child’s statements to the judiciary expressing his wish to remain in Paraguay. The Court noted that it had made efforts for D. and his father to interact, using different methods of bringing them together and that after the nearly two years of restoration of ties ordered, they had not been restored.69 71. On June 26, 2017, the International Return Bureau, Paraguay’s central authority, in representation of the Secretariat for Children and Adolescents, appealed to the Juvenile Court of Appeals based on lower court error, requesting reversal of the June 20, 2017 judicial order rejecting Mr. Córdoba’s request for restoration of ties, taking into consideration the final judgment of March 31, 2017 in the documents “[D.] S/Precautionary Measure,” “by which the judge purports to deem concluded the international return process.” It argued that the restoration of ties had been requested in the international return file and that the resolution of July 8, 2015 ordering the launch of the restoration of ties had not been set aside.70 On July 7, 2017, the appeal was rejected, and the court reversed “in the exercise of its prerogatives the June 20, 2017 order, and, therefore, the requested restoration of ties (…) taking into account decisions yet to be issued.”71 72. The record shows that on July 19, 2017, by virtue of A.I. N° 662, the Caacupé Juvenile Court approved the request for restoration of ties issued by the International Return Bureau in representation of Mr. Córdoba, allowing the request for restoration of ties to proceed, and issuing a plan for interaction between D and his father in the Cordillera and Central jurisdiction, by common agreement with the child’s aunt with custody of him.72 73. Subsequently, the International Return Bureau requested that the restoration of ties take place in Argentina, the child travelling with a family member, given that the process aimed at reintegration into the family “cannot go on indefinitely” and considering that during the last visit, the father “spent very few hours with his Annex 46. Psychological report to the Caacupé Juvenile Court, of March 20, 2017. Petitioner’s submission dated April 18, 2017. Annex 47. Resolution S.D. N° 28, of March 31, 2017. First Duty Juvenile Court of Caacupé. Petitioner’s submission dated April 18, 2017. 70 Annex 48. Submission of the Director of the International Return Bureau of June 26, 2017. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 71 Annex 49. Resolution of July 7, 2017 of the Judge of the Caacupé Juvenile Court. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 72 Annex 35. Submission of the Director of the International Return Bureau to the Caacupé Judge dated February 7, 2017. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 68 69