denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment to settle the matter. 27. The State alleged that domestic remedies were not exhausted in this case and that seven legal proceedings, initiated before the national judicial bodies by the guardians, both parents, and maternal grandparents of the child, are under way. 28. The petitioners alleged that this case should be exempt from the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding the unwarranted delay in the decision on such remedies. The petitioners say that the Paraguayan Code of the Childhood and Adolescence acknowledges, in principle, the importance of promptly solving those matters related to childhood and adolescence, establishing the summary character of the proceedings, something which was not observed in the case of the child L.M., since two years passed without establishing a relationship between the child and his parents. 29. They petitioners state the L.M.’s parents used ordinary remedies provided in the Paraguayan law without any answer to guarantee their rights and those of the child L.M. The petitioners indicate that the time limits established by the domestic law have elapsed and are afraid that the child be declared in adoption, since rules establish that the family relationship is not a requirement if he stays in custody for more than two years. Thus, they say that the delay of the process is against the best interests of the child. Therefore, the delay on the domestic proceedings and the exhaustion of domestic remedies are against the protection of the child L.M. and the rights of his parents. 30. The Commission observes that the child L.M. is slightly over two years old and almost two years elapsed since he was given in temporary custody to the couple O.A. and since judicial proceedings for his custody started, without any definite ruling delivered at the time of preparation of the present report. Nor was a decision made regarding the request made by the biological relatives in December 2009 to establish access arrangements with the child L.M. The Commission establishes that the absence of such decision has prevented to reunite the alleged victim with his parents. 31. To assess any delay in resolving remedies available under domestic law, the purpose of the legal action must also be taken into account. In this regard, the Commission must take into account that the actions undertaken by L.S. and V.H.R were intended to establish and maintain an emotional and caring relationship with their son. The Commission also considers that the petitioners allege that the length of time taken by the proceedings had a deleterious effect on the rights of L.M. and his biological parents, since as time goes by, the child builds up stronger emotional ties with his guardians. The Commission has noted that the judicial proceedings concerning guardianship and custody of a boy or a girl should be handled with exceptional 4 dispatch, because of the importance of the interests involved. 32. According to the Commission, the petitioners have appealed to competent jurisdictional courts at the national level, submitting ordinary remedies provided by the Paraguayan law, to remedy the violation of the rights of the child L.M. and his parents. Therefore, the State was fully aware of the claims that originated the legal petition. As stated by the Inter-American Court, “the rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective…” 33. Without prejudice to anything that may be disposed regarding the merits of the case in the future by the Commission, the Commission concludes that there was an unwarranted delay in the proceedings of the remedies concerning the legal guardianship and visiting rights and this excuses the petitioner from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. It should be noted that although the application of this exception is closely linked with issues related to prompt access to protection measures and judicial guarantees, the former is decided in line with the admissibility criteria of the system which differ from those that are applicable during the merits 4 IACHR, Report N° 117/06, Petition 1070-04, Admissibility, Milagros Fornerón and Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón, October, 26, 2006, paragraph. 41. 5