20. It maintains that, safeguarding the child’s best interests, on October 20, 2016, the order was postponed that was contained in the judgment of August 14, 2006, ordering the child’s return, for continuity of the plan for interaction between father and son, taking into account the profile prepared by a clinical psychologist that indicated that D. was not in a condition where he could change his residence. 21. On February 16, 2017, the Court ordered the formation of a board of three psychologists to prepare a diagnostic assessment and determine whether return would impact D., taking into consideration that he had been in Paraguay for nine years. Although initially it was agreed that an Argentine professional could participate, the court later decided that it would consist only of the Paraguayan professionals that had been closely involved in the case. It adds that that year, considering D’s emotional sensitivity, the Office of the Defender for Children and Adolescents had requested the court to issue a precautionary measure for D to remain in Paraguay. 22. The State indicates that the professionals identified, as possible consequences of moving the child, anxiety, stress, and/or depression. It maintains that on March 31, 2017, in a final judgment it was decided to approve the request for a precautionary measure for the child D to remain in Paraguay. It adds that, in the juvenile area, precautionary measure judgments are not final, since the “principle of the possibility of modification” of judgments governed. It adds that, additionally, D’s view was respected that he did not want to leave the country because he had put down deep roots in society and was integrated into the city of Atyrá, where he had grown up and developed emotional, cultural, and social ties. It indicates that on May 22, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court had decided not to admit the unconstitutionality action brought by Mr. Córdoba, considering, among other things, the child’s current circumstances and the harm that implementation of the return order could cause to his rights and integral development. 23. The State argues that the rights of the alleged victims were not violated. Regarding the right to a fair trial, it maintains that it has guaranteed all rights and remedies available under the law, that Mr. Córdoba’s right to due process had been respected, and that in fact three domestic courts had decided in his favor. It indicates that although over ten years have passed since the return order was issued, no resolution ordered in the juvenile area would be final under Article 167 of the Juvenile Code, which indicates that judgments can be modified or reversed, by the court or on application by a party, provided the conditions on which they were based no longer obtained. It indicates that in the case of the child D., his best interests were taken into account, as were his views. It maintains that the reports of the medical board established to monitor and follow the case show that if the child D were returned or moved, the consequences could be latent anxiety, stress, and/or depression. 24. It maintains that the State, through its central authority, has prepared different proposals for restoration of ties, and had coordinated those proposals with the Argentine central authority, for their implementation. It indicates that Mr. Córdoba has had an opportunity to attend the interaction sessions. However, he did not attend them because he was seeking to interact without interference from others. However, the State, safeguarding the child’s emotional health, decided that the first stage would take place in the presence of maternal relatives. It maintains that the State, even in December 2019, had prepared details of the process for restoration of ties in specific stages so that they would effectively be restored. 25. Regarding the alleged victim’s argument that the State “knew exactly where the mother and child were,” the State maintains that the raids carried out by the competent bodies showed that the child D and Mrs. M.R.G.A. were not found in the places that the petitioner indicated during the proceedings. It explains that different search operations and intelligence efforts were carried out together with and in coordination with different state areas involved in the case, such as the Interior Ministry, the National Secretariat for Children and Adolescents, and the National Police. 26. The State indicates that Mrs. M.R.G.A.’s arrest resulted from her failure to heed the judicial order to appear at the return hearing set. It maintains that the conduct of D’s mother was not defined in Paraguayan criminal legislation since the person who removed the child was his own mother, for which reason one of the extradition requirements was not met, i.e., double criminality, since the crime had to be defined in the legislation of both the extraditing country and the sentencing country. 27. It argues that the IACHR cannot fail to take into account the child’s best interests and respect his right to