that will facilitate the process. The State agreed with the Commission that a visiting regime cannot be proposed as an end in itself, and the biological father must have a real influence in the child’s life. Argentine also expressed its commitment, insofar as possible, to remove the obstacles that exist to establishing ties between father and daughter. In addition, it recalled that it had taken specific measures designed to ensure material conditions to contribute to the bonding process and insisted on the efforts it had made with the province of Entre Rios to achieve or attempt to bring the father and daughter together. 156. In this case, the Court determined that the domestic proceedings culminating in the decision to hand over M for guardianship and subsequent adoption violated the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, protection of the family, and the rights of the child recognized by the American Convention (supra paras. 77, 106, 111 and 124). Consequently, in principle, this Court should annul the domestic decisions taken in the said proceedings. However, the Court cannot overlook the exceptional aspect of this case, which is the circumstance that a bond has been established between the child and her adoptive parents and the social environment in which she has been immersed for almost 12 years. 157. This Court has indicated that reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), whenever possible; this consists in re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in numerous cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to safeguard the violated rights and to repair the consequences of the violations.116 The Court considers that, in this case, it is not possible to create immediately a relationship between father and daughter that has not been established in almost 12 years. 158. In this regard, the Court observes that the Inter-American Commission and the State did not propose the immediate return of the child to her biological father, but rather that a process of bonding be initiated with certain characteristics. In particular, Argentina indicated its willingness to provide material resources and therapeutic assistance, indicated that the biological father should have a real influence in the child’s life, and undertook to remove the obstacles that existed to the relationship between father and daughter 159. In addition, the Court took note of the opinion provided during the public hearing in this case by expert witness Guilis, proposed by the State, who indicated, on the one hand, that the child had developed affective ties with her actual social and family environment from which she could not be separated suddenly and, on the other hand, that the ties between the child and the biological father and his environment could not be established immediately. The Court recalls that the expert witness offered by Argentina “advised against returning the child after 11 years” and stated “that [in this case] for the child’s good, […] it is necessary to restore […] the role of the father, who never renounced that role.” In this regard, the expert indicated that she “endorse[d] the State’s proposal […] for establishing a bond by means of a visiting regime between [M] and her biological father, considering that this is the most prudent way of reducing the harm that has already been caused in this prolonged litigation process.”117 Lastly, the Court observes that expert witnesses Guilis and García Méndez, the latter proposed by the Commission, underscored the importance of informing M of the truth about her origin,118 which, in this Court’s opinion, should include what happened during the guardianship and adoption proceedings, and the efforts made by 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 111, para. 26, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 277. 117 Cf. Opinion of expert witness Guilis provided during the public hearing 118 Cf. Opinions of expert witnesses García Méndez and Guilis provided during the public hearing. 44