settlement in the receiving country, the adolescent’s best interest and well-being, the severity of the difficulties he or she might experience in the country of destination, the solidity of the social, cultural, and family ties in the two countries, and the family situation, considering different factors, including the possible emotional and psychological impact. The Commission considers that that examination must also take account of the situation of the parents and the rights involved in such a decision. 163. In fact, the Commission notes that, when deciding these types of case, the European Court has recognized, for example, in the case of Shaw v. Hungary,188 that the passage of time may change the circumstances – which may call for an eventual reassessment of her ties to her parents and their environments respectively. In that regard, it held that “[g]uidance on this point may be found, mutatis mutandis, in the Court's case-law on the expulsion of aliens …, according to which, in order to assess the proportionality of an expulsion measure concerning a child who has settled in the host country, it is necessary to take into account the child's best interests and well-being, and in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which he or she is likely to encounter in the country of destination …”189 In said case, the Court held that the situation was aggravated by the fact that more than three and a half years passed without the father being able to exercise his access rights due to the fact that the Hungarian authorities established lack of jurisdiction in the matter. In that connection, in the case of Fornerón and daughter, the Court indicated “that the determination of the best interests of the child, in cases concerning the care and custody of minors, must be made based on an evaluation of the specific conduct of the parents and its negative impact on the well-being and development of the child, if applicable, or on the real and proved, not speculative or imaginary, harm or risk to the well-being of the child. Thus, speculations, presumptions, stereotypes, generalized considerations on the personal characteristics of the parents, or cultural preferences regarding traditional concepts of the family are inadmissible.”190 164. Likewise, in the case of Karrer v. Romania, the European Court held that was important to determine whether a fair balance between the competing interests at stake – those of the child, of the two parents, and of public order – was struck.191 In this specific case, it had to “ascertain whether the domestic courts had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature. Secondly, it must decide whether the domestic courts had made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for abducted child in the context of a return application.”192 165. In the instant case, as indicated above, in order to determine whether the Paraguayan State had fulfilled its obligations, it is necessary to determine whether the court has conducted an in-depth examination of the impact that return would have on the rights at stake. And also of the impact on those rights of not returning the child. From the information contained in the file, the Commission notes that the court took account essentially of the psychological report, D’s opinion, the time he had spent and his roots in Paraguay, and the failure of the interaction D had had with his father as the basis for deciding not to return him. The record does not show that the court had ascertained the impact that decision would have on the rights of the father, nor the reasons why it was better for the child’s interests to remain where he was living with an aunt and not even with his mother. 166. Nonetheless, as the very denomination of the decision not to approve the return indicates, this was a precautionary measure in the framework of the decision whether to return him. As mentioned by the State, in the juvenile area, precautionary measure judgments are not final, since the “principle of the possibility of modification” of such judgments governs. That is, D’s situation even now would not be final and could be changed in time with the possible impacts that that might have on him. 167. The Commission notes that the passage of time could be especially serious and lead to the alteration of some situations so that they became permanent. In the instant case, the existing legal situation is of concern since, on the one hand, it notes that to date, there is no final judgment determining D’s guardianship based on a European Court of Human Rights. Case of Shaw v. Hungary (Application no. 6457/09), 26 July 2011. Par. 75. 190 I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparation, and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, par. 50. 191 Europe Court of Human Rights. Case of Karrer v. Rumania (Application no. 16965/10), 21 February 2012. 192 Par. 40. 188 189