5 t) On November 5, 2010, L.M.’s parents filed requests for a contact regime with the child before the Children and Adolescents Court, regarding which disqualifications and recusals also occurred. The results of these actions was not provided, and u) The maternal grandparents of L.M. filed a request for custody of the child and requested a provisional contact regime. The results of this action were not provided;24 v) On March 21, 2011, the National Children and Adolescents Secretariat’s Adoption Center submitted the report on the psychosocial and legal aspect of maintaining the relationship within the framework of the main custody proceeding;25 based on this, it indicated that “it would be desirable that the Court: 1. Revoke the provisional custody of the child [L.M.] granted to O.Z. and E.A.P. 2. Order the reinsertion of the child [L.M.] with his maternal grandparents, [A.S.] and [T.M. de S], or with the biological father [V.H.R.], or the biological mother L.S, who are able to assume responsibility for raising and caring for the child, mainly because the current family group encourages mutual help and shared responsibilities.”26 3. The processing of the request for precautionary measures and the petition before the Inter-American Commission: a) On June 17, 2010, the Coordinadora por los Derechos de la Infancia y la Adolescencia [Coordinator of the Rights of Children and Adolescents] (hereinafter “CDIA”) and the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) filed a request for precautionary measures before the Commission. Petition 1474/10 was opened; b) On July 26, 2010, the Commission asked the State to submit information on the following aspects within 10 days,: a. Whether the biological parents have access to the child while the judicial proceedings take place. If not, the State should provide the reasons; b. Based on the best interests of the child and the alleged effects that this situation could have on the relationship of the proposed beneficiary and his parents, indicate the duration of the proceedings to decide on the custody of the child, and whether there is any expedite procedure under Paraguayan law so that his situation can be decided as soon as possible; and c. Any information that the State deems pertinent with regards to the situation described by the petitioner;27 c) On August 23, 2010, the State submitted its response confirming the essential elements of the proceedings indicated by the petitioners, and adding the following information on the points raised by the Commission: a. At the date of presentation of the report, “the Court of the original proceedings ha[d] not ordered the precautionary measure of a provisional contact regime while the trial was being 24 Cf. Petitions to have access to the child filed by L.S., V.H.R. and the maternal grandparents in November 2010 (attachment 22 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 25 Cf. Report on the psychosocial and legal aspects for maintaining the relationship issued by the Adoption Center and dated March 10, 2011 (attachment 25 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 26 Report on the psychosocial and legal aspects for maintaining the relationship issued by the Adoption Center and dated March 10, 2011 (attachment 25 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 27 Communication addressed by the IACHR to the State of Paraguay of July 26, 2010 (attachment 14 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission).