Córdoba had already been evaluated by a psychologist in the judicial proceedings in Argentina, so that they considered another evaluation unnecessary. The State also indicated that the paternal grandparents should be evaluated as part of the extended family, and that the guardian did not encourage telephone communication with D. 84. On July 9, 2020 the State reiterated the proposal for restoration of ties presented in December 2019, and explained that the plan would be implemented by a Ministry for Children and Adolescents psychologist, as well as a social worker, both with experience of the international return process and restoration of family ties. The State also indicated that “it had not yet received a clear view of the proposals presented, which makes it difficult to move forward with implementation of the precautionary measures.” It maintained that on July 8, 2020, a team from the Return Department of the Ministry for Children and Adolescents had moved forward with the first stage of the plan for psychological evaluation of the adolescent, mother, and guardian, estimating that two visits per week would take place, and proposed that Mr. Córdoba begin meetings as of August or on any date he proposed for prompt recommencement of the process of restoration of ties. 85. On October 22, 2020, the petitioner indicated that “the strategies set out by Paraguay thus far do not constitute anything other than delays and an abuse of a position of power in the context of the behavior exhibited by [Mr. Córdoba’s] fellow citizen, Mrs. [M.R.G.A].” It asserted that the State had “developed a yarn to show that his fellow citizen (…) has not committed any crime and that Mr. Javier Córdoba has squandered processes for restoration of ties,” and that psychological professionals had engineered the reports on D’s health so as to conclude that “he does not wish to alter his situation.” Regarding the plan proposed by the State, it indicated that it was impossible to comply with it, “with nearly weekly visits, constant studies of Javier Córdoba’s personality, the expectations for which (…) were exceeded in the Argentine proceedings.” It indicated that D. should travel to Argentina “because he is an Argentine national, to be at rights with the law in the Court and in the record under which his international return is being processed.” It maintained that “recognition of the wrongful act of abduction is fundamental to resolving the conflict and regarding [D’s] general health”, and that it was fundamental for the criminal action for abduction […] that is the subject of proceedings in Argentina move forward in accordance with the due process recognized in the respective constitutions and in the international instruments signed by both countries, which remain in force to date.” It indicated that the legal obstacles had to be removed if ties were to be normalized and that said process should be monitored by a neutral interdisciplinary team. IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW