145. In the instant case, there is no disagreement as to whether in the domestic forum itself it was determined that the child D was wrongfully removed by his mother. By resolution upheld by the Supreme Court of Paraguay on September 18, 2006, it was decided to approve his return. On that basis, the Commission will now proceed to examine the question as to whether the State took the steps required to fulfill the obligations set forth above. To that end, the Commission will analyze whether the State fulfilled its duty of exceptional diligence and with the required celerity. - Failure to discover the whereabouts of D. and the measures taken to find him 146. The Commissions notes that following the return hearing on September 28, 2006, M.R.G.A disappeared with the child D. The record shows that the authorities discovered the whereabouts of the child only in 2015, that is, nine years after his return was ordered. 147. In order to analyze the current situation, as indicated by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Shaw v. Hungary,186 the Commission considers it relevant to establish whether, given the need to locate a boy or girl following his or her disappearance, the authorities took adequate and effective steps to effect the return. In that case, the Court noted that for nearly eleven months from the issuing of the judgment that ordered the return and the disappearance of mother and daughter, the only measures taken were unsuccessful requests by the bailiff for voluntary return of the girl and the imposition of a relatively small fine on one occasion. The European Court considered that other measures available to the authorities were not used, including the possibility of police assistance and the repeated imposition of fines, and that, although the mother was subsequently arrested, the authorities did not take steps to enforce the return order, despite the final order for this to be done. 148. In the instant case, in analyzing the actions of the Paraguayan State, the IACHR notes that although D’s mother indicated that she did not agree to the return, no immediate special steps were taken to prevent her from taking the child into hiding, which ultimately did occur. In this regard, the IACHR considers that, according to the standards governing this area, the court had a duty to determine whether it was necessary for protective measures to be adopted to prevent the concealment or removal of the child, and to expedite his return, a matter that it is not shown took place in this case. In that regard, the Commission considers that it was important, after the return order was issued, for the child as soon as possible to be protected from any other danger, including the risk of concealment. The IACHR does not note that steps were taken to that end. 149. Moreover, the information provided in the framework of the instant case shows that the following steps were taken by the State with a view to implementing the return decision: (i) when M.R.G.A. failed to appear on the day of the hearing, an order was issued to verify that situation at the mother’s home, a procedure carried out by the court’s court report accompanied by the forensic psychologist, with assistance from the police, and the court then issued an official letter to the Command of the National Police; (ii) a raid on the home of D’s extended family; (iii) following Mr. Córdoba’s request in October 2006, a court ordered the case file to be forwarded to the Office of the Criminal Prosecutor for it to open an investigation for an “act punishable with the public administration—resistance,” given the impossibility of implementing the return order and the subsequent international arrest warrant ordered by the prosecutor’s office; (iv) on January 10, 2007, the Court reiterated the search warrant; (v) the Secretariat for Children and Adolescents requested the court to forward a search warrant to INTERPOL in Itapua Department; (v) on April 17, 2008, the First Guarantees Court of Asunción issued an arrest warrant for M.R.G.A “for purposes of extradition”; (vi) in May of that year, a raid of the Atyrá residence was ordered and the Court reiterated the order to search for and locate the child D at the national and international levels; (vii) in November 2008, “in view of [D’s] medical history,” the Court requested the Secretariat for Children and Adolescents to order an interdisciplinary team to visit the maternal residence of the child to provide guidance to the family member regarding M.R.G.A.’s recalcitrant behavior; (viii) INTERPOL allegedly made searches for the child and his mother in both the aunt’s and the maternal grandparents’ home between 2006 and 2009, without success. 186 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Shaw v. Hungary (Application No. 6457/09), 26 July 2011.