150. The IACHR notes that the State did not provide detailed information on other steps taken for implementation of the return order that might reasonably have been expected during the period that D was in hiding. There are also time periods for which it is not known whether the State took any type of step to discover his whereabouts. In addition, and in accordance with the standards reviewed, the IACHR does not note that the State took all necessary steps to facilitate the reunification that might reasonably have been called for in this case. For example, it is apparent that once D. was located, he indicated to the court that he was attending school in the city of Atyrá, as well as catechism classes, that he lived with his mother, his brother and his “daddy,” and that in the past he had lived elsewhere in the same city and that he had also lived in his maternal grandmother’s home. In that regard, the case file does not contain, for example, evidence of letters to the local schools to determine whether D. attended any of them. Neither does it show that steps were taken to determine whether D. was receiving care in any health center, especially since on the date of the abduction, he had epilepsy. Moreover, although at some time a raid of the extended family’s home was ordered, the child himself indicated that at that time he was living with his grandmother and attended a catechism class. Evidently, therefore, the step taken was ineffective, or only one search was made. 151. In view of all of the foregoing, the Commission notes that the steps taken by the State do not show due diligence that would justify the inability to discover the whereabouts of the child for nine years. - The steps taken by the State once D was located 152. The Commission notes that the delay in implementing the return order led to a change of circumstances, which made it necessary for the authorities to prepare an evaluation of the impact that implementation of the return order could have on D’s rights, given the time that had gone by. In that regard, after D’s appearance, a precautionary measure was issued for guardianship by his maternal aunt. Additionally, on July 8, 2015, the Court for Children and Adolescents of Caacupé ordered as a preeminently precautionary measure a plan for progressive restoration of ties between Mr. Córdoba and D., including the extended paternal family. It also ordered that D undergo psychotherapy. 153. The Commission acknowledges, regarding the implementation of return decisions, as the European Court has indicated in the case of Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Rumania, 187 the authorities have an obligation to take measures to facilitate reunion in cases of return. Taking into account especially that reunion of a parent with children who have lived for some time with the other parent may not be able to take place immediately and may require preparatory measures to be taken, depending on the circumstances of each case. That Court has considered that therefore there is an obligation to create the necessary conditions for executing the order in question, whether coercive measures against the parent who retained them or steps to prepare for the return of the children. 154. In particular, regarding restoration of ties, the IACHR notes, as referred to in the section above (par. 128), that in these types of matters, the States, in keeping with the interests of boys, girls, or adolescents and the protection they are due, should immediately implement a system of visits that would guarantee the children’s access to their mother or father and extended family, in appropriate conditions, without unnecessary restrictions, in an atmosphere that ensured that they could interact as normally as possible. The Commission also asked the State to take measures to ensure that this system was implemented effectively throughout the international restitution process; with specialized and independent support to ensure the well-being of boys, girls, or adolescents and the least possible intrusion in the relationship. 155. In the instant case, the Commission notes that once D’s whereabouts had been discovered, responsibility for his temporary care was assigned to his maternal aunt, but it does not have detailed information on expert advice or other steps taken to determine whether she was in the best position to exercise that role and that her guardianship would be the best option, taking account of D’s best interests. 156. The IACHR notes that the domestic courts took a number of steps to provide support and arranged for psychological evaluations initially intended to lead to interaction between father and son. Moreover, at D’s 187 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ignaccolo- Zenide v. Romania. (Application No. 31679/96), 25 January 2000.