guarantees to both father and child. C. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection i) Considerations of the Commission 58. Regarding the presumed violation of Articles 8(1)60 and 25(1)61 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) 62 and 19 63 thereof, the Commission indicated that the domestic proceedings on the legal guardianship and on the visiting rights did not comply with the guarantee of a reasonable time. It affirmed that the judicial authorities “incurred in a series of delays that ended up constituting the grounds for the decisions.” Argentina “has not contested that the domestic authorities who heard the case during the judicial proceedings acted in non-compliance with their obligation of exceptional diligence, with extremely serious effects on the exercise of several rights of [M and Mr. Fornerón], including the right to a family and the right to identity. It stated that Mr. Fornerón “never had the possibility […] to be heard apart from during the approval of the adoption procedure that had been initiated illegitimately, illegally [and] with clear indications that rather than adoption, […] it was a process of appropriation that was occurring.” The State “never implemented any of the judicial guarantees established for the protection of children, even for the defense of adoption as a protective institution that protects and safeguards infants and children and the concept […] of family.” The legal situation of M was determined by the passage of time in the judicial proceedings. 59. In particular, regarding the reasonable time in the legal guardianship proceedings the Commission stated that: (a) “this involved a proceeding that was, by its nature, delicate, requiring expert opinions; the participation of a biological father who opposed the guardianship, and a detailed analysis of the rights of the child”; (b) Mr. Fornerón, among other actions, resorted to the courts on numerous occasions, requested the return of his daughter three times during the proceedings, submitted voluntarily to DNA testing, and appealed the judgment opportunely, even though he lived 100 kilometers away from the place where the proceedings were being held; (c) the proceedings lasted three years and eight months, during which there was significant lack of activity and the competent first instance authority omitted to order basic measures, and (d) the duration of the proceedings had a particularly serious effect on the rights of Mr. Fornerón and his daughter, because 60 El Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 61 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 62 Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 63 Article 19 of the American Convention establishes: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 19