responsibility for his son. The petitioners state that on November 16, 2009, L.S. and V.H.R. registered L.M. as their son at the Civil Registry Directorate General (Dirección General del Registro del Estado Civil). In light of this, on November, 2009, Mrs. E.A.P. and Mr. O.O.Z. filed a motion for termination of the parent-child legal relationship (patria postestad) against L.S. and, three months later, they brought an action against V.H.R to contest his paternity. According to the petitioners, none of these two proceedings were solved. 14. The petitioners state that on December 14, 2009, both biological parents ratified their request to assume responsibility for the child in a hearing held before the Third First Instance Judge for Children and Adolescents (Jueza de Primera Instancia de la Niñez y Adolescencia del Tercer Turno). After the hearing, Mrs. L.S. requested the Judge to order the necessary measures to visit her son during the end-of-year holidays. She also expressly stated that she would not give her consent to an adoption and requested, as a precautionary measure, to prohibit L.M. from leaving the country. The Judge ordered the intervention of the Judiciary’s Office for Maintenance of Relationships (Oficina de Mantenimiento del Vínculo del Poder Judicial) and the execution of socioeconomic and psychological studies in relation to the biological parents. The petitioners indicate that the Adoption Center (Centro de Adopciones), the Technical Team of the Secretariat for the Childhood and Adolescence (Equipo Técnico dependiente de la Secretaría de la Niñez y Adolescencia), and the Corazones por la Infancia Foundation (Fundación Coraznes por la Infancia) recommended the pertinence of reinserting L.M. into his biological family. 15. The petitioners allege that the biological parents appealed against the resolution dated December 14, 2009, because it would keep the child away from them, while the relevant examinations were conducted. Remedies were awarded but, on March 11, 2010, the Childhood and Adolescence Court of Appeals declared that they were improperly awarded and ordered the file to be sent to the court of the original proceedings. 16. They indicate that many judges disqualified themselves from the case, taking into account the public positions and career of Mrs. E.A.P., current guardian of the child. During six months, no decision was made or measure taken in favor of the child L.M., even when his biological parents had submitted several requests to promptly settle the matter. The petitioners indicate that on July 2, 2010, the Second Childhood and Adolescence Appeals Chamber issued a resolution revoking the custody granted to the O.A. family and ordering the restitution of the child to the biological father and a visits regime in favor of the biological mother. In view of such resolution, the O.A. family filed an appeal for annulment and, on August, 18, 2010, the Childhood and Adolescence Court of Appeals annulled the previous sentence referring the case back to the court on duty. 17. Due to the self-disqualification of all Childhood and Adolescence judges, the case would be currently pending before the Adolescents Criminal Court. The process would go back to the sentence dated December 14, 2009, in which psychological and environmental studies were indicated for the biological parents, which have not been yet carried out. The petitioners indicate that despite the fact that the child’s biological parents and grandparents submitted various requests, the child only had one contact of one hour and a half with his maternal grandparents, and none with his biological parents. 18. Based on the above-mentioned, the petitioners requested the Commission to declare the violation, to the detriment of the child L.M., his biological parents, L.S. and V.H.R, and his maternal grandparents, of their rights to humane treatment, to a fair trial, to privacy, the rights of the family, the right to a name, rights of the child, the right to equal protection and the right to judicial protection, set forth in Articles 5, 8, 11, 17, 18, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, pursuant to Article 1.1 of such treaty. B. Position of the State 19. In its reply, the State alleges that the petitioners have not exhausted the remedies offered by the domestic jurisdiction and denies the violation of the best interests of the child and the right to judicial guarantees. 3