independent support to ensure the children’s well-being and the least possible intrusion in the relationship.151 129. For its part, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has concluded that the State party has violated articles 3, 9 (3) and 10 (2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, considering that its failure to take effective steps to guarantee the right of the author’s daughter to maintain personal relations and direct contact with her father on a regular basis deprived the girl of the enjoyment of her rights under the Convention. In particular, the Committee is of the view that the authorities did not take the necessary steps to enforce those orders so as to ensure contact between the author and his daughter.152 3. Right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and the duty of exceptional diligence and speed, in relation to the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions with respect to international return proceedings. 130. Of all the principles for determining and applying the special protection measures involved in separating children from family, the IACHR has established exceptional diligence as a guiding principle. Thus, it has maintained that "Considering the importance international human rights law assigns to the family and given the seriousness, due to its being both irreversible and irreparable, of the harm that can be caused to the child in the relationship with his or her parents, especially in early childhood, the Commission and the Court have set a standard of exceptional diligence with respect to matters of adoption, guardianship, and custody of children."153 Accordingly, the I/A Court of H.R. has held that the above corresponds to the need to safeguard and protect the best interest of the child, as well as to guarantee rights that may be at risk until the dispute on the merits is resolved and to ensure that any decision reached has a useful impact.154 The Court has further established that administrative and judicial procedures concerning protection of the human rights of minors, especially procedures relating to the adoption, guardianship, and custody of very young children, must be pursued by the authorities with exceptional diligence and speed.155 Therefore, the nature and intensity of this impact on the rights of the child "warrant a duty of particularly reinforced diligence on the part of public authorities in all actions they take, especially with respect to any decision that entails separating a child from his or her parents or family of origin."156 The IACHR considers that, given the characteristics of the international return procedure, and the potential impacts of a delay in making a decision on return of a child, the aforementioned principles apply fully to these kinds of procedure. 131. Article 2 of the Convention, regarding the general duty of States parties to adjust their domestic law to bring it into line with the provisions of the Convention in order to safeguard the rights upheld therein, implies that two types of measure need to be adopted: deletion of any rules and practices of any kind that contravene the guarantees provided for in the Convention; and the issuing of rules and development of practices conducive to effective observance of those guarantees. Regarding the adoption of such measures, the Court has recognized "that all the authorities in a State party to the Convention have an obligation to monitor consistency with the Convention (control de convencionalidad) to ensure that the interpretation and application of domestic law is compatible with the State's international human rights obligations."157 132. Pursuant to Article 8.1 of the American Convention "for the determination of every person's rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, “due guarantees" must be observed to safeguard, in the procedure in question, the right to due process. "Failure to comply with any of those guarantees amounts to a IACHR, PM 314/13- X, Y and Z, Mexico. Resoluton of March 6, 2015. Committee on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/83/D/30/2017, C.R. v. Paraguay, CRC/C/83/D/30/2017, of March 12, 2020, par. 8.8. 153 The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54/13. October 17, 2013, par. 199. 154 Matter of L.M. Provisional Measures regarding Paraguay. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Preambular (Considering) par. 16. 155 I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 242, par. 51. 156 The Right of Boys and Girls to a Family. Alternative care. Ending Institutionalization in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54/13. October 17, 2013, par. 199. 157 I/A Court H.R. Case of the National Association of Former Employees and Retirees of the National Superintendency of Tax Administration (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, par. 200. 151 152