changed, neither in fact nor in law. Therefore, they requested that the provisional measures be continued. However, in March 2012 they confirmed that the child LM was living with his maternal grandparents and had daily contact with his mother and father, for which reason they requested the lifting of the provisional measures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the representatives noted that the maternal grandparents did not have formal documents certifying that they are the child’s guardians and that “the State ha[d] not provided the support of specialized personnel to monitor the child LM’s process of interaction with and incorporation into his biological family.” 8. The Inter-American Commission pointed out that there was no court ruling revoking of the custody of the child from the O-A couple and, although it viewed the gradual rapprochement between the child and his family in a favorable light, it considered that the process had not been carried out appropriately. During the hearing it stated that it felt it necessary for the Court to continue monitoring the child’s relationship with his biological family until a final court ruling is issued. However, in its last brief it “deemed admissible the lifting of the provisional measures under the terms requested by both parties.” 9. The Court notes that since the provisional measures have been in force, the State has provided incomplete information regarding their implementation and without the required frequency. As to the facts, the first meeting of the child and his maternal grandparents took place on September 27, 2011, almost three months after the provisional measures were ordered. Subsequently, there was no contact between the child LM and his biological parents given that the domestic courts did not order it, in spite of repeated requests by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, a body appointed by the Supreme Court to implement the measures. On the day of the hearing convened by the President of the Court (supra Having Seen 6) the State reported that the O-A couple had communicated to the domestic courts their decision to relinquish custody of the child, and that during a court hearing held on that same day the maternal grandparents had agreed to accept custody. Indeed, on February 24, 2012 the aforementioned court issued a ruling in this regard, and therefore, since the maternal grandparents of the child were appointed as guardians, the child LM currently maintains a relationship with the extended family and also with his biological parents given that his mother lives in the same house as the grandparents. 10. The purpose of these provisional measures has been the need for the State to adopt the measures necessary, adequate and effective to protect the rights to humane treatment, identity and protection of the family of the child LM, allowing him to interact with his family of origin while the judicial proceedings to define his legal status were being resolved. The Court notes that there was a lack of clear information regarding the manner and circumstances in which the child’s transition from the custodial family to the family of origin was carried out, which occurred in an immediate and not a gradual manner. Nor was the Court provided with information indicating that this rapprochement was carried out with the support of appropriate professional personnel to monitor the child’s emotional situation. Nevertheless, the fact is that the circumstances that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures no longer exist, and that the State, the representatives and the Commission agree that the lifting of the measures is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court deems it admissible to lift the provisional measures, on the understanding that the parties agree to this and without any detriment to the proceedings in the case admitted for consideration by the Inter-American Commission. The Court points out that, under the terms of Article 1.1 of the American Convention, the lifting of 5