for international return with the Duty One Court for Civil, Labor, and Juvenile Matters. On April 19, 2006, that court instituted proceedings pursuant to Law 928/96, adopting the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, and issued as a precautionary measure the prohibition of the removal of child D. from the country, the Defender for Children responding.15 33. On May 5, 2006, Justice of the Peace of the city of Atyrá was commissioned to notify D’s mother of the request for return, informing her that she could return the child voluntarily to his customary place of abode, and, if she refused, to submit within eight days the reasons for her refusal, with evidence. A defender of absent parties was also designated for the applicant parent. On May 25, 2006, Mrs. M.R.G.A. indicated her refusal to return the child. On June 1, 2006, the Court deemed that the petitioner had appeared and her domicile established, and the Defender for Children was informed of Mrs. M.R.G.A.’s opposition set forth in the record.16 34. On June 26, 2006, the Court rejected in limine the reasons for refusal submitted by D’s mother and ordered through judgment No. 15 to approve the request for international return of the child D., setting the return hearing for July 6, 2006. It also lifted the precautionary measure prohibiting D’s departure from the country in order to give relevant notifications once the child had been formally handed over to the father.17 35. On July 4, 2006, Mrs. M.R.G.A. lodged an appeal against the judgment with the Juvenile Appeals Court, which was granted with staying effect.18 In the appeal proceedings, D’s mother argued that the child was under five years old and that in case of dispute over which parent the child was to live with, “preference should be given to the mother.” She added that the court had not ordered an evidentiary hearing, despite having requested the submission of evidence. By Judgment No. 123, of August 14, 2006, the aforementioned court upheld all aspects of the judgment of the court of first instance, considering that it had established that removal of the child to Paraguay had been illegal in the terms of Law No. 828/96.19 36. D’s mother filed a motion for clarification with the court because the judgment had not rendered a view regarding the “cohabitation [sic - “convivencia”; should be “conveniencia” - advisability] of the child D going to live in the home of the father since he suffers from permanent mental illness and bearing in mind that in the instant case, the child’s best interest must take precedence.” on August 24, 2006, the Juvenile Appeals Court declared that motion inadmissible, because in cases of international return, “the judge or court is prohibited from analyzing the merits of the matter, and must only consider whether return would be in conformance with the international convention governing the area,” as it was in this case.20 37. Subsequently, M.R.G.A. filed an appeal requesting reversal of the decision allegedly violating the constitution [unconstitutionality action], which was rejected in limine on September 18, 2006, considering that violation of constitutional norms had not been demonstrated.21 38. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, a return hearing was convened for September 28, 2006, for D to be brought before the court by his mother under penalty, with a view to effecting the return. When M.R.G.A. failed to appear on the day of the hearing, a visit to the mother’s home was ordered, a procedure carried out by the court’s court reporter, accompanied by the forensic psychologist, with assistance from the police. Therefore, the court sent an official letter to the Command of the National Police. The record shows that Mr. Annex 7. Report on actions set forth in the file titled “[D] S/International Return,” issued by the Judge of the First-Instance Juvenile Court of Caacupé to the President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of November 10, 2008. Petitioner’s submission dated September 12, 2011. 16 Annex 7. Report on actions set forth in the file titled “[D] S/International Return,” issued by the Judge of the First-Instance Juvenile Court of Caacupé to the President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of November 10, 2008. Petitioner’s submission dated September 12, 2011, pp. 3-4. 17 Annex 8. Final Judgment No. 15, of June 26, 2006. First-Instance Juvenile Court of Caacupé. Petitioner’s submission of September 12, 2011. 18 Annex 7. Report on actions set forth in the file titled “[D] S/International Return,” issued by the Judge of the First-Instance Juvenile Court of Caacupé to the President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of November 10, 2008. Petitioner’s submission dated September 12, 2011. 19 Annex 9. Agreement and Judgment No. 123, August 14, 2006. Juvenile Appeals Court. Petitioner’s submission of September 12, 2011. 20 Annex 10. Agreement and Judgment No. 132, August 24, 2006. Juvenile Appeals Court. Petitioner’s submission of September 12, 2011. 21 Annex 11. Judgment of September 18, 2006. A.I. N°1487. Supreme Court. Petitioner’s submission of September 12, 2011. 15