comprehensive analysis of his situation and that of his parents that would provide certainty regarding his future. This creates a high degree of uncertainty for the parties and, in particular, for D. On the other, neither does the Commission note that steps have been taken effectively to establish a plan for effective interaction between D. and his father, taking into account that the adolescent has now reached full development and maturity, and that would tend to strengthen family ties. 168. In that scenario, the Commission notes that the mere passage of time attributable to the Paraguayan State generates impacts on the rights of the child D and of his father. The Commission notes that it was the court itself that emphasized the failure of the interaction. In particular, the effectiveness of ties has not been fully achieved by the authorities, although the IACHR itself in the framework of the precautionary measures ordered in this area noted that there were few meetings between the two and that they lacked sufficient guarantees, which is why it granted the precautionary measure precisely to address this aspect. Moreover, in this area, the IACHR notes with concern that thus far, no specific and effective plan for interaction has been adopted for the restoration of family ties, taking into consideration the specificities of the instant case, since the adolescent D is about to reach his majority and over a decade has passed since he was abducted. - Conclusion 169. In view of the foregoing, although the Paraguayan authorities approved the return at a time close to when D was unlawfully removed from one country to another, the steps required to implement that decision were not taken. This began with the failure to take steps to ensure his return, since D was in hiding, as well as the lack of due diligence to discover his whereabouts. Moreover, although D was found nine years later, the record does not show that the State took steps to restore interaction with his father prior to proceeding to return D. In fact, the Commission notes that in 2017, a precautionary measure issued at a national level was ordered in which it was decided not to return him. However, that order was problematic, since although it should have been a decision wherein an in-depth analysis was prepared of the entire impact on the rights at stake, it did not clearly generate certainty regarding the future of the adolescent D., nor was an effective plan or roadmap established for generating interaction with his father. 170. As has been shown, the State did not act with the diligence or celerity required to guarantee the rights of the child D. and of his father. This not only constituted a failure to provide judicial protection of their rights not to suffer arbitrary interference in their right to family life and the consequent protection of the rights to a family, in keeping with the best interest deriving from the rights of the child D. In accordance with the standards reviewed and understanding that implementation of the return is part of said proceedings, in view of D’s current age, for the Commission it is striking that the process has been unreasonably drawn out, this also constituting impact on the right to identity of the child D., who has developed and grown up without ties to his father. 171. In view of all of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Paraguayan State is responsible for violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, private life, protection of the family, rights of the child, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8, 11, 17, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument, to the detriment of D. It further considers that the State is responsible for violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 11, 17, and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument, with regard to Arnaldo Javier Córdoba, D’s father. B. 172. Right to personal integrity,193 read in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has considered that “the suffering generated by The relevant text of Article 5 of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 193