with the passage of time the child created stronger ties with the guardians, a factor that was subsequently used to maintain the adoption and deny the requests of the biological father. The courts failed to comply with their obligation of diligence and there was an unjustified delay in deciding the proceedings that gravely affected the rights of M and Mr. Fornerón. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State had violated the right “to a hearing within a reasonable time” as established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. 60. Moreover, regarding the reasonable time in the proceedings on visiting rights, the Commission indicated that: (a) the determination of a visiting regime was a delicate matter that required expert opinions and monitoring; (b) Mr. Fornerón requested the right to have contact with his daughter and recognition of their right to be together before various authorities and took various measures, despite which, although a judgment was delivered that recognized the possibility of establishing a visiting regime in May 2001, at the date on which the case was submitted, this had not been implemented; (c) it did not agree with the State that Mr. Fornerón, but had been inactive; rather the latter had filed all the appropriate requests and collaborated to the extent necessary in the judicial proceedings; his only period of inactivity coincided with the processing of the appeal against the judgment that awarded the guardianship, between April 22, 2002, and November 25, 2003, the date on which Mr. Fornerón reiterated his request for a visiting regime on several occasions in view of the inactivity of the courts. In addition, Mr. Fornerón proposed a meeting and requested the joinder of the cases on the visiting rights, legal guardianship and adoption, which was denied. On November 18, 2005, he requested that judgment be delivered and there is no record that any judicial activity has taken place since then; (d) the court’s inactivity fails to meet the requirement of basic diligence. The court in charge of the case was the same one that had initially determined the viability of establishing a visiting regime, so that it had the obligation to act with special diligence in the proceedings, knowing that the passage of time would have negative effects. However, the court did not take any measures until it “delivered a ruling” in March 2004. From April 2004 to April 2005, there was no movement in the case file, and (e) the foregoing was relevant in the determination of the legal situation of M and of her father, because that same court established the simple adoption of the child in favor of the couple B-Z in December 2005, based on the relationship developed over the course of time. Even though that decision reiterated the pertinence of commencing contacts between father and daughter, the competent authorities have not made any progress in this regard. The Commission concluded that a delay of almost nine years in establishing a visiting regime, the possibility of which was indicated in two judgments, constituted a violation of the right of Mr. Fornerón and of his daughter M to proceedings conducted within a reasonable time, as established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, and also violated Mr. Fornerón’s right to an effective remedy, because he has not been provided with an effective mechanism for implementing the said visiting regime, in violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention.64 ii) Arguments of the representatives and of the State 61. The representatives agreed substantially with the Inter-American Commission. They indicated that Mr. Fornerón and M had the right to the State complying with the obligation to “provide them with effective judicial remedies because their human rights were violated”; and that those remedies be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of 64 In its final arguments briefs, the Commission indicated that “from the information in the case file, it does not appear that, in the course of the three proceedings, the competent authorities adopted appropriate measures to ensure that [M] was heard so that her opinion, free of all errors of understanding could be assessed by the respective judicial authorities.” This affirmation corresponds to a new argument which was not mentioned when the case was submitted to the Court, so it will not be considered by the Court. 20