stereotypes, generalized considerations on the personal characteristics of the parents, or cultural preferences regarding traditional concepts of the family are inadmissible.56 51. Moreover, the Court has also maintained that, owing to the importance of the interests in question, the administrative and judicial proceedings that concern the protection of the human rights of children, particularly those judicial proceedings concerning the adoption, guardianship and custody of children in early infancy, must be dealt with by the authorities with exceptional diligence and speed.57 52. The Court has also established that, in cases of the custody of children, the simple passage of time may constitute a factor that encourages the creation of ties with the foster family or the family that has the child. Consequently, the greater the delay in the proceedings, irrespective of any decision on the determination of the child’s rights, could determine the irreversible or irreparable nature of the de facto situation and make any decision in this regard null and prejudicial for the interests of the child and, if applicable, of the biological parents, whatever the corresponding decision taken.58 53. Based on these general considerations, and in order to examine the violations in this case, the Court will now rule on: (a) reasonable time and due diligence in the domestic judicial proceedings; (b) protection of the family, and (c) obligation to adopt domestic legal measures. In this regard, the Court considers it opportune to clarify that the purpose of this case is to determine whether the said judicial proceedings complied with the State’s international obligations under the American Convention. 54. Before making the said analysis, the Inter-American Court will assess the measures taken by the State to reach a friendly settlement in this case, and those designed to achieve the establishment of ties between Mr. Fornerón and his daughter, which included among other domestic authorities, two Ministers of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation. 55. In addition, the Court takes note that, in its answering brief,59 Argentina recalled that the Secretariat for Children and the Family had indicated that: It was the courts that […]systematically severed Mr. Fornerón’s guardianship of his daughter and, consequently, their possibility of forming their own family. 56. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights of the Nation at the time, stated that: This is a paradigmatically serious case, involving reproachable conduct by judicial officials who instead of protecting and repairing the violation of the rights of the child and her father, chose to delay the proceedings and manufacture an irreversible factual context that was then used as grounds for their decision. 57. Lastly, the current Minister of Justice and Human Rights endorsed his predecessor’s position and indicated that: The judicial proceedings conducted by the province of Entre Ríos did not guarantee the constitutional norms and the international treaties with constitutional rank that grant rights and 56 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra note 50, para. 109. 57 Cf. Matter of L.M. Provisional measures with regard to Paraguay. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, considering paragraph 16. 58 Matter of L.M., supra note 57, considering paragraph 18. 59 The State’s answering brief (merits file, tome I, folios 574 and 575). 18