42. On May 4, 2011, a hearing was held before the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, at which the child was heard, and also Mr. Fornerón and the couple B-Z. The child stated that she did not know Mr. Fornerón and, although at times during her statement she indicated that she did not want to see her biological father, she also stated that it might be possible to take some kind of measure to gradually get to know him, such as Mr. Fornerón visiting her at her home in the presence of her adoptive mother. Mr. Fornerón indicated that he wanted “to get to know her and know what she thinks”; he explained that “his intention was not to appropriate her, but to have a visiting regime, get to know her; if she is older and wants to come and live with him,” and explained that “today the reality is not the same, she is able to reason, she can ask for things, and whether she wants a visiting regime or not; today the reality is that she is 10 years old and can take decisions […]; [he] cannot oblige her to live with [him].” The parties agreed (a) to establish a visiting regime by mutual agreement and progressively; (b) that Mr. Fornerón should desist from his remedy of non-applicability of the law; (c) a confidentiality agreement, halting any type of publicity, interviews or declarations about the case, and (d) Mr. Fornerón would not file any new civil or criminal complaints that upset the family life of the child and her adoptive parents.47 Case entitled “Fornerón M[.] Ref/Full adoption,” file No. 4707 43. On July 6, 2004, the couple B-Z filed a request for full adoption. Following a series of internal procedures, Mr. Fornerón was summoned to appear before the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria on April 8, 2005. Mr. Fornerón indicated his opposition to the adoption on several occasions, including on April 6, 2005, when he also advised the judge that he had filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and asked that “the request for any form of adoption be denied, because paternal consent is an essential requirement to be taken into consideration when making any decision in this regard.” On April 8, 2005, the couple B-Z asked the judge to deliver judgment, stating that Mr. “Fornerón’s opposition to the adoption was not binding […] as regards granting [it].” In their appearance before the judge, the biological mother granted her consent to the adoption and Mr. Fornerón opposed it. On December 23, 2005, the Civil and Commercial first instance judge of Victoria granted simple adoption to the couple B-Z.48 B. General considerations of the Court 44. In this case, the Court considers that the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, protection of the family, and the rights of the child must be interpreted in light of the international corpus juris for the protection of children. As this substitute first instance judge of June 17, 2010; appeal of July 30, 2010; Judgment of the First Court of the Second Chamber of the Judiciary of Entre Ríos of November 9, 2010; appeal on non-applicability of the law of December 2, 2010; note No. 12 of the Second Chamber of Paraná of February 28, 2011 (file of attachments to the answer, tome IV, folios 3965, 3967, 3969 to 3975, 3976, 3977, 4006 to 4008, 4036 to 4038, 4053, 4054, 4057, 4078, 4079, 4097 to 4099, 4123 to 4129, 4244 to 4259, 4277, 4295 to 4308, 4377 to 4432, 4440 to 4454 and 4464). 47 Cf. Record of the hearing held before the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos (file of attachments to the answer, tome IV, folios 4479 and 4480). 48 Cf. Brief with application for full adoption filed by the couple B-Z on July 6, 2004; summons of the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria of March 7, 2005, addressed to Mr. Fornerón; brief of Mr. Fornerón of April 6, 2005, addressed to the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria; request of the couple B-Z for the delivery of judgment of April 8, 2005; record of appearance of Mr. Fornerón before the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria of April 8, 2005, and judgment of the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria of December 23, 2005 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachments 29, 31, 32 and 33, folios 345 to 349, 367, 369, 371, 372, 374, 375, 371, 372, 374, 375 and 389 to 396); Mr. Fornerón’s brief of March 18, 2005, contesting the adoption, and record of appearance of Ms. Enríquez before the Civil and Commercial First Instance Court of Victoria of October 28, 2004 (file of attachments to the answer, tome V, folios 4700 and 4666). 16