They submit that the alleged victim presented all these requirements on February 20, 2016 and that the Judge, nevertheless, failed to enforce the judgment of the child’s return. 7. They claim that on March 31, 2017, again, to the detriment of Mr. Javier Cordoba’s legal safeguards, the Third Court of Caacupe granted a new precautionary measure consisting in that the boy remain in Paraguay, contradicting not only international rules but also its own judgment ruling the return of the child. As to this, they submit that the child’s best interest has been damaged due to the refusal to enforce the judgment, the subsequent issue of precautionary measures that prevent a father-son relationship, and the additional efforts to legitimize the judicial delay and errors in Paraguay. 8. For its part, the State claims that the petition is inadmissible as there is no violation of the alleged victims’ rights. With respect to this, it submits that since 2006 several procedures were undertaken to enforce the judgment of return of the child and to finally arrest the mother. It indicates that the Paraguayan authorities undertook procedures of house searches and of searches in different parts of the country, and that the different courts ruled in favor of the alleged victim. Finally, as to the boy’s health, it asserts that in Paraguay there are hospitals and health centers offering universal and free-of-charge services; therefore, the mother and the child can receive immediate assistance anytime. VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION 9. The petitioner claims that the proceedings for the international return is the appropriate remedy, but that although more than 11 years have passed since the judgments were issued, none of them have been enforced. The State, in turn, does not submit any observations on the exhaustion of domestic remedies or the timeliness of the petition. 10. The requirement concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, set forth in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, establishes that first the remedies under domestic law must be pursued and exhausted. These remedies must be safe enough, both formally and materially; that is to say, they must be available and effective to settle the reported situation. Thus, concerning effectiveness, the Commission analyzes whether the alleged victim did everything reasonably expected from them to exhaust domestic remedies6 or if there was a factual obstacle for said exhaustion. 11. The Commission notes that, in this case, the parties have focused their claims on the proceedings undertaken before the civil jurisdiction for the international return of child D., which is the appropriate remedy. In this regard, the IACHR takes into account that since 2006 Mr. Javier Córdoba has filed numerous requests before the Paraguayan judicial authorities to have the judgment for the return of his son enforced. However, his efforts have been unsuccessful in view of the alleged escape of the mother and other actions to avoid the return, and in view of the legal resolutions of temporary guardianship and stay in Paraguay, issued in 2015 and 2017, respectively. In addition, on October 18, 2006, the alleged victim reported the child’s abduction before the criminal jurisdiction and has continuously filed requests seeking the enforcement of the international arrest warrant to establish the whereabouts of the mother and the child. In this context, the Commission deems that Mr. Javier Córdoba did everything that is reasonably expected from him to exhaust domestic remedies. In light of the foregoing, the IACHR believes that the exceptions concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2.b) and c) of the American Convention apply on this case. 12. Furthermore, the petition to the Commission was received on January 30, 2009 and the purported events matter of this complaint occurred in June 2006 and their effects regarding the alleged denial of justice reportedly persist to date. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of this case, the IACHR considers that the petition was lodged in a reasonable time and that the timeliness requirement is met. VII. 6 page 12. COLORABLE CLAIM ECHR, Case of P.P. v. Poland (Application No. 8677/03), Admissible, Decision of Court (Fourth Section) of January 24, 2006; 3