son.”73 On November 7, 2017, the Caacupé Court decided to admit the request of the Director of the International Return Bureau in representation of Mr. Córdoba, agreeing to the requested interaction 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, without changing the location, as had been requested on November 1, 2017, in order to prevent negative impact on the stability of the child D.74 74. On December 5, 2017, the Juvenile Court of Appeals of Caacupé resolved to confirm in all aspects the judgment of March 31, 2017. This resolution was challenged by Mr. Córdoba in an unconstitutionality action brought that indicated that final judgments could not be set aside “where the right of both parties to self-defense is fully respected and wherein it had already been decided to approve the return.” 75 On May 22, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided not to admit the unconstitutionality action brought by Mr. Córdoba.76 75. On July 6, 2018, the extradition request was rejected that had been issued by the Judge of the Second Criminal Court of Guarantees of Mercedes Judicial Department, Buenos Aires. That resolution was upheld by the agreement and judgment of August 6, 2018, issued by Judge of the First Criminal Court of Guarantees of the Capital.77 76. On January 18, 2019, the International Affairs Bureau of Paraguay prepared an assessment of D. and his family at the request of the Ministry for Children and Adolescents to report whether the child was in contact with his father and whether a visitation plan existed, as well as health status, among other things. According to the report prepared, D’s aunt alleged that he was in psychotherapy treatment once a month on instruction of the judge (it does not say when this started); D. was still living with his aunt and her husband and he interacted daily with his mother and that “he prefers to live with his aunt, since he was used to her owing to the years they have lived together”; from 2015 to 2018, at least four visits took place, three of which Mr. Córdoba attended with his mother and the last attended by himself alone (in that period, they allegedly were not in contact by phone); about D’s health status, the report indicated that regarding the father’s allegation about D’s epilepsy, “there are no medical records showing that this health condition has been identified, but that it would be relevant to make a medical evaluation to determine whether the child did in fact have epilepsy.”78 77. D’s aunt also maintained that after her sister married, she communicated with her sporadically because Mr. Córdoba made her stay in the house, and had “confiscated” her identity card and other documents. She maintained that following a family visit to Paraguay during which Mrs. M.R.G.A told her family about the situation, they had secretly begun to send her money, which she had used to cross the border with help from individuals. She maintained that thereafter, M.R.G.A moved into her father’s house and “was protected by the Atyrá community.” She indicated that M.R.G.A was unable to work for two years because she did not have an identity card, and that D. had received medical care and had entered an educational institution. In D’s interview, he was asked about the difficulties of relating to his father, and he indicated that he didn’t like it that he [the father] referred negatively to his mother and that he [the father] was lying about how he felt, among other things. He indicated his wish to remain in Paraguay, where he played soccer and practiced taekwondo, played the tuba, and was comfortable in the community, and he agreed to the possibility of reestablishing assisted interaction with Mr. Córdoba. The report identified the fact that the family was overprotective of D. as an obstacle to the restoration of ties.79 Annex 50. Submission of the Director of the International Return Bureau of September 25, 2017. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 74 Annex 51. Judicial Resolution A.I. N°843 of the Caacupé Juvenile Court of November 7, 2017. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 75 Annex 52. Judgment No. 438, of May 22, 2019, issued by the Supreme Court of Justice State’s submission of July 2, 2019, in the framework of MC-188-18. 76 Annex 52. Judgment No. 438, of May 22, 2019, issued by the Supreme Court of Justice State’s submission of July 2, 2019, in the framework of MC-188-18. 77 State’s submission dated February 14, 2019, regarding MC-188-18. In its submission, the State refers to Final Judgment No. 36, dated July 6, 2018 and Agreement and Judgment No. 302, dated August 6, 2018. 78 Annex 53. Report of the International Returns Bureau dated January 18, 2019. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 79 Annex 53. Report of the International Returns Bureau dated January 18, 2019. Petitioner’s submission of November 13, 2019, in the framework of MC- 1188-18. 73