stripped the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children of all meaning and usefulness. 14. The petitioner alleges that the State has failed to take useful and effective steps to execute the judgment that ordered D’s return. It maintains that the State failed to refer to the steps taken to guarantee medical care for the child, although D should have had urgent access to medical care. 15. It maintains that the State has violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, that the ineffective process of restoring ties between D. and his father has violated the right to protection of the family and that the child’s best interests were not safeguarded, since by ordering that D. remain in Paraguay, the party who wrongfully removed him and kept him in hiding was being favored. Lastly, it maintains that the years of the judicial proceedings have impacted the humane treatment of the alleged victims. B. The State 16. The State of Paraguay indicates that the National Secretariat for Children and Adolescents (SNNA), as Paraguay’s central authority, has been involved in the process for D’s international return since receipt of the note of February 8, 2006, by which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Worship, Argentine central authority, forwarded the international return request. It indicates that on May 5, 2006, it notified the child’s mother and that, in view of her refusal to agree to the return, the Secretariat for Children forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Court of Cordillera Judicial District. 17. It indicates that the judgment of June 26, 2006, issued by the Juvenile Court of the city of Caacupé, ordering the return, was upheld by the courts of second and third instance, and therefore was “final and enforceable.” The central authority requested the court to execute the judgment in accordance with Article 13 of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children. Therefore, the Juvenile Court of Caacupé ordered the execution hearing. The failure of the mother and child to appear at the hearing led to a series of unsuccessful raids. This led the court, on September 28, 2006, to order a nationwide search for the child and an official letter was sent to INTERPOL. It adds that for years, the SNNA and the Interior Ministry made efforts to comply with the search order for the child and for the arrest of his mother, including search operations and intelligence efforts by specialized personnel of the INTERPOL Counter-Abduction, and Intelligence Departments. The State refers to different steps taken. It adds that on October 12, 2006, the Court ordered that the file be forwarded to the duty Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, and a criminal action was brought in which, in 2008, an arrest warrant was issued for the child’s mother. 18. It argues that the delay in enforcing the return order initially was due to the fact that the whereabouts of Mrs. M.R.G.A and the child D. were unknown for nine years and that, despite the efforts of the State to locate the child, the situation was difficult, since for the first six years of the search, the child had no school records, nor were entries made in his medical file. Therefore an order was issued for the nationwide search and location of Mrs. M.R.G.A. and D., periodically requesting information from the investigations of the Interior Ministry and the National Police. Additionally, although D’s mother had indicated a real domicile in the international return process, that domicile was actually that of her parents, which made it difficult to locate her. 19. The State indicates that on May 22, 2015, the child D. and his mother were located, and Mrs. M.R.G.A. arrested and taken to a correctional facility. That the court, safeguarding the child’s best interest, decided to place him in the custody of his closest family relative, his aunt. It indicates that, in view of the time passed between the return order and the location of the child, it had become more difficult to fulfill the objective of the resolution, in view of his age and the roots he had put down. In that context, the central authority proposed launching a process of restoring ties between the father and child, with a view to the child’s return. It adds that the State was taking all steps necessary for the success of the restoration of ties, in the framework of the precautionary measure ordered by the IACHR, and that a number of medical boards had been formed with support from psychologists that had followed the process. It maintains that although Mr. Córdoba had on four occasions requested an order for restoration of ties, he had not taken advantage of them, indicating that it would have meant interacting with his son with third parties looking on, and at the place the child was living.