78. According to a report of the First Duty First-Instance Juvenile Court of Cordillera, the resolution for D to remain was final by virtue of the judgment of May 22, 2019, and as of May 27, 2019, the father had not requested a plan for restoration of ties. It also indicates that Mr. Córdoba “has not made requests of this court with a view to continuing the interaction with his son. Since the request for food assistance on behalf of the adolescent D. was made, he has even refused to receive the notification, therefore refusing to take part in the aforesaid proceedings.” 80 79. On May 23, 2019, the hearing with the Judge of the First Duty First-Instance Juvenile Court was held, where the adolescent D. and his guardian (his aunt) were heard, accompanied by their representative and in the presence of the Defender for Children and Adolescents. On that occasion, D. stated that he was 15 years old, lived with his aunt but that he saw his mother every day, and that he had two siblings, 8 and 3 years old. He also stated that “I don’t want my father to bother me anymore” and that he didn’t want to interact with him, and that he wanted to live with his mother. He stated that his father would call him on the phone, and that if his father came to visit him, he would not have a problem about interacting with him as long as he allowed him to live with his mother. He also stated that his aunt and his mother paid his expenses.81 80. In another vein, on May 10, 2019, the IACHR granted a precautionary measure in this case.82 This was requested by the petitioner on September 24, 2018, alleging that as a result of the failure to implement the return order, the preservation of family ties between father and son was in jeopardy. The IACHR indicated that the judge had ordered hearings for restoration of ties, to which the father had for the most part agreed, even though he had to incur expenses and spend time that in his capacity as a “mere worker” called for extreme efforts, that the hearings did not respect the father’s availability, and that “in the context of the places and situations, they could hardly achieve improvement of the father and son relationship.” In the framework of the precautionary measure proceedings, the IACHR found that meetings allegedly took place in the following periods: July 20 to 23, 2015; November 8 to 14, 2016; February 25 and 26, 2017; January 2019 (four meetings); and March 2019 (two meetings of 45 minutes each). It also found that visits had been scheduled for August 11 to 13, 2015, and 16 to 20, 2017, which could not take place because the father did not attend. The petitioner also mentioned fear for D’s health, since he suffered from epilepsy, and the petitioner did not know whether D was receiving medical treatment. 81. The IACHR requested the State to take the steps necessary to safeguard, in keeping with the child’s best interests, the rights to protection of the family, and to the identity and personal integrity of the adolescent D. In particular, that the State had to ensure that the adolescent D effectively maintained ties with his father, with the support of appropriate professional personnel, without unnecessary restrictions, in a suitable environment, and by means conducive to generating a meaningful relationship, in keeping with the applicable international standards in this area. 82. On July 2, 2019, in the framework of the precautionary measure, the State presented a proposal for restoration of ties in different stages. D’s father indicated that he considered that proposal illogical, not in accordance with law, nor adequate, and made a counter-proposal, indicating that the interaction should also include the paternal grandparents and the rest of the family, and requesting that psychological evaluations be made of D’s mother and guardian. 83. On December 5, 2019, the State presented another proposal for restoration of ties in different stages over a two-month period, in January and February 2020, also proposing, as requested, that psychological evaluations be prepared of the parenting skills of D’s parents and of his guardian, and of the adolescent regarding behavioral characteristics and preparation for the restoration of ties. It also indicated that the multidisciplinary technical team could be composed of Argentine professionals proposed by Mr. Córdoba, presenting a timetable of activities. On February 24, 2020, a working meeting was held. On February 25, 2020, the petitioner indicated that Mr. Annex 54. Report of the First Duty First-Instance Juvenile Court of Cordillera. State’s submission of July 2, 2019, in the framework of PM188-18. 81 Annex 55. Record of the hearing of May 23, 2019 before the Judge of the First Duty First-Instance Juvenile Court. State’s submission of July 2, 2019, in the framework of MC-188-18. 82 IACHR, PM 1188-18. Adolescent D., Paraguay. Resolution of May 10, 2019. 80