In this regard, the Commission is competent to examine the situation that is the subject of this complaint in the light of Article 17 of the American Convention concerning the obligations of the State to respect the rights of the family. Furthermore, the child L.M. is entitled to special measures of protection of minors. In this regard, the Commission will examine the facts alleged in relation to the duties of States to prevent and protect in accordance with Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention. 40. Although the Commission is not competent to decide about the guardianship and custody of the child L.M., it is competent to analyze if the proceedings and jurisdictional timelines observed the conventional rules, especially in relation to the best interests of the child. Therefore, in relation to the information and considerations submitted on the excessive time taken in the proceedings of judicial guardianship and visiting rights, the Commission states that, if proved, they could be described as violations of Article 5 of the Convention, pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, with regards to the right to prompt recourse to judicial protection, as well as to judicial guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention. 41. Furthermore, according to the information submitted by the petitioners, the Commission does not have enough elements to establish prima facie possible violations of Articles 11 and 24 of the Convention. 42. Consequently, the Commission concludes in this case that the petitioners have lodged complaints that, if compatible with other requirements and if proved correct, could establish the violation of those rights enshrined in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 17 (rights of the family), 18 (right to a name), 19 (rights of the child), 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in agreement with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect and guarantee rights) of the said instrument, to the detriment of the child L.M., of his biological parents, L.S. and V.H.R., and of his maternal grandparents. 43. The Commission concludes that it does not have sufficient grounds to infer an alleged violation of Articles 11 and 24 of the Convention by the Paraguayan State. V. CONCLUSIONS 44. The Commission concludes that is competent to examine the case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, regarding the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of such international instrument. 45. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that it does not have enough grounds to infer the alleged violation of Articles 11 and 24 of the Convention. 46. Based on the foregoing factual and legal considerations, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant case admissible with respect to the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 17, 18 and 25 of the American Convention, pursuant to obligations of Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 2. To declare the case inadmissible with respect to Articles 11 and 24 of the American Convention. 3. To notify this report to the petitioners and to the State. 4. To continue with its analysis of the merits of the case. 7