8 requirements under the Convention, analysis of which corresponds to the merits of the matter, become the means for the urgent protection and safeguard of L.M.’s rights, and the way to ensure that the measures of comprehensive restitution eventually recommended by the Commission or ordered by the Court can be truly effective. 5. The Secretariat’s note of May 25, 2011, in which, based on Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the Court in plenary, the State was asked to submit, by June 6, 2011 at the latest, any observations it deemed pertinent, as well as any other relevant information and documentation. In this communication the State was asked to keep the identity of the child L.M. confidential. 6. The brief of June 9, 2011, in which the State responded to the request for observations (supra having seen paragraph 5) and indicated the following: a) The parties’ right to file petitions before the authorities had been respected, and “it had acted with due diligence in all the proceedings, complying with the provisions of the Constitution and international treaties”; b) The measures taken by the domestic authorities should be taken into account, as they reveal the State’s interest and willingness to guarantee the comprehensive protection of the child L.M. The State, through its courts, has adopted all existing legal measures to resolve the disputes surrounding the child, respecting constitutional guarantees and due process; c) The seven proceedings concerning the child L.M. that are currently active must be studied and analyzed thoroughly, “because there are various differences of opinion that, if taken lightly, could cause significant harm to the child.” The State referred specifically to the criminal proceeding opened for the offense of abandonment against L.S., “birth mother of the child L.M.,” the investigative phase of which had concluded and the accusation against her had been filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with a request to hear the case in public oral proceedings. The preliminary hearing was set for June 7, 2011. It also mentioned the case challenging paternity, which was at the stage of receiving evidence; d) To ensure that “situations such as that of the child L.M. do not occur again,” on May 23, 2011, the National Children and Adolescents Secretariat (SNNA) submitted a request for examination of a bill to amend Articles 7, 18 and 21 of Law 1136/97, Adoption Law. 7. The Secretariat’s note of June 13, 2011, in which, on the instructions of the President, the Inter-American Commission was granted until June 16, 2011, to submit any observations it deemed pertinent. 8. The brief of June 16, 2011, in which the Commission submitted its observations on the State’s report and argued that “it was abstract”; that it did not change in any way the grounds for the Commission’s request for provisional measures but rather, to the contrary, it reflected the lack of celerity in the proceedings. In addition, the Commission argued that the report revealed that the State continued to give normal treatment to this matter, which “is characterized by the fact that the urgency does not derive from a threat of harm, whose appearance can be anticipated in the future, but from harm that is already being caused and the prospects of repairing it are inversely proportionate to the passage of time.” 9. The brief of June 23, 2011, in which the Commission “expanded the [preceding] observations.” It indicated that “the main custody case remains paralyzed owing to the