V. ALLEGED FACTS 1. The petitioner claims that Mr. Javier Arnaldo Córdoba (hereinafter “the alleged victim” or “Mr. Córdoba”), an Argentine national, and Mrs. M.R.G.A,5 a Paraguayan national, had a child (boy “D.”) in 2004. They assert that on January 21, 2006, Mrs. M.R.G.A. took the boy from his house, in Buenos Aires province, Argentina, without the father’s consent, wrongfully taking the child to Paraguay. They indicate that when this occurred, the child was 1 year and 11 months old, suffered from epilepsy and was under a special medical treatment in Argentina. 2. The petitioning party claims that in view of the facts and in the framework of the provisions of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, Mr. Córdoba filed proceedings before the Third Court of Caacupe, in the Paraguayan jurisdiction. On June 26, 2006, this Court ruled that D. be returned to Argentina. They submit that the child’s mother impugned the decision and the presiding Judge stayed her own judgment until the appeal was settled, although the Juvenile Code clearly establishes that resolutions adopted are subject to appeal without a stay of execution. On August 14, 2006, the Juvenile Court of Appeals confirmed the judgment establishing the immediate return of the child. Subsequently, Mrs. M.R.G.A. presented a constitutional appeal that the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay rejected in limine on September 18, 2006 on the grounds that no constitutional safeguard had been violated in the proceedings. 3. The petitioner claims that D.’s mother disobeyed the judgment ruling the child’s return to Argentina and refused to return the child to the father by escaping after the last resolution was issued. They assert that none of the Paraguayan authorities enforced the judgments, thus preventing the reestablishment of the ties between the child and the father. As a result, Mr. Córdoba lodged complaints before the Prosecutor’s Office in Caacupe on October 18, 2006 and the Fifth Prosecutor’s Office in Mercedes on November 6, 2006 for child abduction and concealing. In the framework of the criminal proceedings in the Paraguayan jurisdiction, an international arrest warrant was issued against Mrs. M.R.G.A. in 2008. 4. The petitioning party asserts that despite continuous requests, appearances and petitions, for almost ten years no legal procedures were undertaken to find the child, even though the child’s precise location in Paraguay was known. In this regard, they indicate that the mother had mentioned her address at the legal inquiry, that there were certificates of her participation in domestic elections as well as records of her having been to hospitals where she allegedly went with the boy. Moreover, they stress that the searches made were of questionable efficacy, since when the police arrived at the place, the mother and the child were already gone minutes before. 5. They submit that on May 22, 2015 INTERPOL informed the alleged victim that his son had been found and that the judicial authorities ordered to place Mrs. M.R.G.A under house arrest. They indicate that, in view of this, the Third Court of Caacupe decided to grant the maternal aunt the temporary guardianship of the child despite the parental authority of the father, who had requested the return of the child since 2006. In addition, as a precautionary measure, the Court established an arrangement for the gradual restoration of the family ties with Mr. Javier Córdoba. However, the petitioning party indicates that there has not been an actual reestablishment of the contact with the child because the Judge granted few hearings for the father to meet with his son, disregarding the necessary periods of time and because the continuous presence of third parties (maternal relatives) prevents that the child and the father interact with each other in a context of trust. Therefore, the petitioning party asserts that, though it has been two years since D. was found, his return has not taken effect. 6. The petitioner explains that in 2016 the Argentine judicial authorities who had heard the case forwarded two letters rogatory to the First-Instance Juvenile Court No. 1 in the roster of Caacupe to request that the child be immediately returned to his country of origin, and that there was no reply to them. Furthermore, they indicate that on February 4, 2016, the Children’s Rights Ombudsman of Paraguay requested that a series of requirements be met prior to the return of D., such as a domicile guaranteed for a minimum term of 6 months, school enrolment, health insurance, a livelihood, payment of travel expenses to the country. 5 To protect D.’s identity, their mother’s name is kept confidential. 2