2. The brief of August 25, 2011, wherein the representatives of the beneficiary of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) expressed that, “despite the fact that the deadline established by the Court had been lapsed at great length, the State has still not implemented any specific and effective measure that could be interpreted – at least – as an initial step regarding the mentioned Order of the Court.” 3. The brief of August 26, 2011, wherein the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter “the State” or “Paraguay”) reported that the Ombudsman’s Office for Children and Adolescents had been assigned to ensure the implementation of the provisional measures. 4. The brief of August 29, 2011, wherein the representatives presented information on the implementation of the provisional measures. 5. The note of August 29, 2011, of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), wherein, given that the brief presented (supra para. 3) did not contain more information on the measures that had been adopted, and given that the deadline for the presentation of the first report on implementation of the measures had lapsed, the State was required to file a complete and detailed report where it was also required to make reference to that which was reported by the representatives. 6. The brief of September 16, 2011, wherein the representatives expressed, inter alia, that “the State is not complying with the measure ordered as the State has not carried out the visitation schedule between the child L.M. and his extended family of origin.” 7. The note of September 20, 2011, of the Secretariat, wherein the State was told once again that due to the lack of greater information from what has been presented thus far regarding the adopted measures and given that the deadline to present the first report had lapsed, the Court reiterated its request for the State to present a report. 8. The brief of October 3, 2011, wherein the representatives provided information regarding the implementation of the measures. 9. The note of October 3, 2011, of the Secretariat, wherein it once again told the State that the deadline to present its first report had lapsed, and it reiterated its request for said report to be presented. Moreover, it reminded the State that the timely and periodic presentation of information on the effective implementation of the provisional measures ordered by this Court constitutes an obligation of the State and that the timely observance of this obligation is fundamental to monitoring the status of the implementation. Moreover, it was noted that pursuant to Article 27(9) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, “the Commission, the beneficiaries of the measures, or their representatives, and the State could be summoned to a public or private hearing regarding the provisional measures.” 10. The brief of October 13, 2011, wherein the State expressed that on September 27th “the first reunion between the boy L.M. and his maternal grandparents had taken place.” 11. The brief of November 30, 2011, and its annexes, wherein the State expressed, by way of its Embassy in Costa Rica, that “it has complied with the measure requested” in the matter through resolutions of the Court for Children and Adolescents and of the Appeals Court for Children and Adolescents. 2