5. In relation to the situation of the child L.M., the State and the representatives reported the following: a) On August 2, 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay issued a resolution addressed to the Ombudsman for Children and Adolescents, wherein it ordered that all the necessary measures be implemented in order that the provisional measure of the Inter-American Court be satisfied; b) On August 23, 2011, the Ombudsman for Children and Adolescents requested that the Courts of First Instance for Children and Adolescents implement the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and confirmed by the Supreme Court; c) on that same date, the judge of the court of first instance in charge of processing of matter, summoned the parents, maternal grandparents, and guardians of child L.M. to a hearing for August 31st, in order for them to appear be heard. A psychologist and social worker were also summoned, both of judiciary; the the and the d) on that same day, the attorney for couple O-A challenged the presiding judge, filed an action for annulment of the actions, and requested the suspension of the set hearing; e) on August 31, 2011, all those summoned appeared in court, except the couple OA, guardians of child L.M. The hearing was held, and at the end of the hearing, immediate compliance was ordered with the operative provisions ordered by the Inter-American Court in its Order of July 1, 2011, as well as establishment of a temporary visitation schedule with the extended family (maternal grandparents) as of September 6, 2011; f) on September 5, 2011, couple O-A once again filed an action for annulment and an appeal against the decision of August 31st, considering that the “procedural actions subject to appeal are null as they were declared in violation of the rules of due process” and in contravention with the legal provisions that require the mandatory and ineludible presence of the representatives of the child in proceedings of this nature; g) on September 6, 2011, the day the first encounter should have taken place among the maternal grandparents and child L.M., the guardians did not appear in the place established for the reunion, to which the visitation ordered in the judicial ruling of August 31st; h) on September 27, 2011, the first meeting between child L.M. and his grandparents took place, in the presence of a forensic psychologist and a social worker, in compliance with that established in the resolution of September 31, 2011. i) since then, other visits have taken place between the child and his maternal grandparents and requests to expand the visitation schedule to other members of the biological family of the child have been rejected. 6. The representatives noted that the encounter constitutes “a first step in the implementation of the provisional measures” but that it “is not in any respects effective compliance,” in that the measure involves an “isolated encounter between the boy and his Haitian-origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, Considering clause 3. 4