the cases on legal guardianship, adoption and visiting regime, to avoid “the duplication of evidence and the prolonging of time frames, especially because it was a question of ensuring the best interest of [M].” The judge determined “that the requested joinder was not admissible,” because judgment had already been delivered in the guardianship proceedings, and the visiting regime was being decided by a different process. On October 21, 2005, Mr. Fornerón and his daughter, who was then five years and four months old had their first and only meeting to that date in a hotel, for 45 minutes, in the presence of the psychologist designated by the couple B-Z and an observer from the First Instance Court. The site of this first and only meeting was proposed by the representative of the couple B-Z, because it was a “place that the child already knows and is familiar, and has appropriate rooms for the interview.” This request was accepted by the first instance judge.43 41. Following this meeting, on several occasions, Mr. Fornerón asked the judge to deliver a ruling on the visiting regime. 44 In addition, during this proceeding, among other measures: (a) the parties, including the child, were convened several time to appear at a hearing;45 (b) psychological reports were forwarded by the experts of the two parties; (c) the request of the Secretariat of Human Rights of the Nations to be present in the interviews with Mr. Fornerón “in order to find a solution to this problem, that respected the best interest of the child” was refused; (d) Mr. Fornerón requested, “so as not to delay the proceedings further, […] that the re-establishment of ties with his daughter begin immediately”; (e) on May 27, 2009, a member of the Judiciary’s inter-disciplinary team interviewed Mr. Fornerón, and indicated that “he is in an appropriate state of mind to carry out a visiting regime, with the purpose of achieving the return of his daughter to her family, respecting all the time and steps required to this end”; (f) on June 17, 2010, the judge delivered judgment, denying the requested visiting regime; (g) on June 23, 2010, Mr. Fornerón filed an appeal which was rejected by the First Court of the Second Chamber of the Judiciary of Entre Ríos on November 9, 2010; (h) Mr. Fornerón filed an appeal of nonapplicability of the law on December 2, 2010, and (i) on February 28, 2011, the Second Chamber referred the case file to the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice.46 43 Cf. Brief requesting a measure and brief of Mr. Fornerón’s lawyer requesting a joinder of cases presented on May 19, 2005 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachments 26 and 27, folios 334 to 337); ruling of the first instance judge of Victoria denying the request for a joinder of cases of June 14, 2005; record of the hearing of September 14, 2005, of the first instance judge of Victoria; decision appointing an observer of the First Instance Court of October 20, 2005; record of meeting between Mr. Fornerón and his daughter of October 21, 2005; brief requesting a visiting regime presented by Mr. Fornerón on November 17, 2005 (file of attachments to the answer, tome IV, folios 3896, 3917, 3920 a 3922, 3928 and 3929). 44 Cf. Briefs presented by Mr. Fornerón on November 17, 2005, April 18, 2006, May 24, 2007, November 19, 2009 and December 1, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, tome IV, folios 3933, 3934, 3951, 3954 to 3956, 4224 and 4229). 45 At a hearing held in November 2008, M stated that, in 2005, “she was introduced to the person she calls Leonardo, her biological father, and she was pleased to meet him […]; that she would not like to see him now, but when she is older; at the moment, she wants to live peacefully, carry on her life […]; that her parents not be bothered.” In another hearing held the same day, Mr. Fornerón stated that he “would like a visiting regime every two weeks and in holiday times for a longer period; [he indicated] his intention of seeing her, telling her about her biological reality […]; that, during the visiting regime, [he considered] that, at first, both he and the child should be accompanied by their respective psychologists; [he clarified] that it was not his intention to [remove M] from her family surroundings and from her adoptive parents; [he wanted] what is best for [M] and that the visits take place in Buenos Aires where she lives.” 46 Cf. Summons to a hearing dated November 27, 2007; decision establishing a new hearing on October 20, 2008; records of hearings before the substitute first instance judge of November 11, 2008, and June 12, 2009; psychological report of November 28, 2008; notes of the National Director of Legal Affairs in the area of Human Rights of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice, Security and Human Rights of the Nation and March 5 and 9, 2009; brief of Mr. Fornerón’s lawyer on suspension of time frames and hearing of March 9, 2009; decision of the substitute first instance judge of March 27, 2009; brief of Mr. Fornerón requesting the measure of April 21, 2009; reports of the inter-disciplinary team of the Judiciary of June 1 and 25, 2009; Judgment of the 15