50. In the present case, it is not for the Commission at this stage of the proceedings to decide
whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention actually took place. The IACHR
has carried out a
prima facie evaluation and decided that the petition describes complaints that,
were they to be proved, could be described as possible violations of the rights protected by the
Convention. In this regard, the Commission is competent to examine the situation that is the
subject of this complaint in the light of Article 17 of the American Convention concerning the
obligations of the State to protect the rights of the family. Furthermore, Milagros Fornerón was
entitled to special measures of protection of minors. In this regard, the Commission will examine
the facts alleged in relation to the duties of States to prevent and protect in accordance with
Article 19 of the Convention.6
51. On the basis of the information and arguments lodged concerning the excessive time that
elapsed during the proceedings for judicial guardianship and visiting rights, the Commission
observes that were these to be proved, they could be described as violations of Article 25 of the
Convention concerning the right to prompt recourse to judicial protection as well as of the judicial
guarantees described in Article 8 of the American Convention, because Leonardo Aníbal Javier
Fornerón had the right to be heard in order to determine his rights within a reasonable period.
52. Furthermore, in its examination of the merits, the Commission will decide whether the findings
of the proceedings for guardianship and adoption were in any way discriminatory, under the terms
of Article 24 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Fornerón.
53. Consequently, the Commission concludes in this case that the petitioners have lodged
complaints that if compatible with other requirements and if proved correct, could suggest
grounds for proving the violation of rights protected by the American Convention; specifically
those rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 17 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of
the Child), 24 (Right to Equal Protection), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), and 1.1 (Obligation of
the State to Respect Rights).
V
CONCLUSIONS
54. The Commission concludes that it has competence to examine the case and that the petition is
admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention.
55. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of
the case,
THE INTERAMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
DECIDES:
1. To declare this case admissible in relation to alleged violations of the rights protected in Articles
1.1, 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention.
2. To give notice of this decision to the parties.
3. To continue the analysis of the merits of the case.
4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.
See,
inter alia, The European Court of Human Rights,
Keegan vs. Ireland
, May 26, 1994, paragraph 50, regarding the
scope of this protection with regard to the relationship between parents and children.
6
10