it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 7. The Commission received the petition on September 1st, 2010, and by means of a note dated May 10, 2011, it began to process the petition and requested the State to submit its observations on the admissibility of the case within a two-month term. On August 17, 2011, the Commission sent to the State additional information submitted by the petitioners and reiterated the request of observations of May 2011. The State sent its observations on September 28, 2011, which was sent to the petitioners. 8. On November 10, 2010, the Commission requested the Paraguayan State to adopt precautionary measures with the purpose of speeding internal proceedings regarding the custody and care of the child L.M. After having received a communication on this regard, on May 23, 2011 the Commission submitted a request for provisional measures before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. By means of resolution dated July 1 st, 2011, the Court requested the State to “immediately adopt the necessary, adequate and effective measures to protect the right to humane treatment, the rights of the family and the right to identity of the child L.M., allowing him to be in contact with his biological family, with the support of adequate professional staff for the proper monitoring of his emotional circumstances…“ III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. According to the petition, the child L.M is the son of L.S. (26 years old) and V.H.R. (22 years old), who separated and finished their relationship in April, 2009, before L.S. knew she was pregnant. Apparently, due to various family issues, the mother of the child concealed her pregnancy from her family and from the father of the child. She gave birth to her son on August 2, 2009 and abandoned him on August 4, 2009 at the door of the San Bautista Church in the city of Asunción. The petitioners allege that this was the consequence of her vulnerable 2 emotional situation. 10. In view of the child’s abandonment the authorities, through the Judge of the First Instance Court of Childhood and Adolescence (Jueza de Primera Instancia de la Niñez y la Adolescencia), ordered the provisional guardianship in favor of the B.I. family. However, on September 17, 2009, the judge E.A.P. and her husband O.O.Z. – who were in the process of adopting a boy or a girl –requested the provisional guardianship of the child L.M. 11. On November 10, 2009 the jurisdictional authorities revoked the temporary guardianship in favor of the B.I. family and granted it in favor of the O.A. family. The petitioners allege that 3 it happened even when the Adoption Center had sent a report indicating the inconvenience of giving the child to another family because he had already established emotional ties with the first family. 12. The petitioners assert that on November 12, 2009, before giving the child to the O.A. family, the Adoption Center informed the court about the location of the child’s biological parents, stating that reunification was likely and that the child should not be transferred to a foster family or a family with a view to adopt a child. Nonetheless, the child L.M. was given to the O.A. family. 13. The petitioners allege that the child’s biological father, V.H.R., appeared to the process explaining that he was not aware of the situation, expressing his intention of assuming 2 The petitioners allege that when the child was abandoned in front of the church, he was wearing a bracelet with his mother’s name, which proves that L.S. acted under the influence of her emotional condition and that she did not think about the consequences of her actions. 3 The Adoption Center is the central administrative authority for adoptions, and works together with other organizations and the judicial body. 2