107. On December 12, 2000, the psychological report from the Judiciary on the parents of the Ramírez children was added to the case file.189 The report yielded favorable results on the parents with respect to their suitability to take care of their children.190 The following was indicated: (…) Mr. Tobar suffers from emotional problems (…) in response to the loss of the child, which would only require a brief support therapy (…). It is also expected that when the gentleman is reunited with his son again and the latter's brother, if this were to happen, these emotional problems would be completely overcome (…). Mrs. Ramírez has emotional problems stemming from traumatic experiences and inadequate care by her father during childhood (…) which, nevertheless, on the basis of the love she has for her children, can be treated and overcome (…).191 108. On March 13, 2001, the social worker of the Judiciary submitted a social report on the situation of the parents of the Ramírez brothers.192 It indicated the following: (…) bearing in mind that there are no social obstacles that do not allow or constrain the right of the children to remain with their parents, it is deemed advisable to take into account the request filed by the person who is the subject of the report (…). [Mrs. Ramírez] has always shown great interest in getting her children back and is aware that the father of the older child also wishes to get him back, which situation he completely agrees with. Her financial and housing status cannot be viewed as a constraining factor to have access to one or both children because what is most interesting is the perseverance and interest of the person to get her children back. In addition there were no social obstacles that could jeopardize the children in the event they are handed over, as a result of which it is deemed advisable to take into account the request filed by the children's mother.193 109. In the case file there appears a letter dated June 4, 2001 from the Criminal Investigation Service – Missing Childrens Section of the National Civilian Police Force, sent to the court, with respect to the situation of the parents of the Ramírez brothers.194 It also requested the following: [that] the social workers of the courts, the Attorney General's Office (...), child care residences where the children might have been placed, the directors of these residences, and, to the extent possible, the judges of the courts be subpoenaed and their statements taken (…) to thus check the anomalous way whereby these children were given up for adoption and taken out of the country.195 110. Regarding the change in various courts in charge of the proceedings, the National Civilian Police Force submitted an official letter indicating that "because of the intervention of the attorney Susana de 189 Annex 42. Report of Dr. José Ángel Solís Ovalle, Psychologist of the Juvenile Trial Court of Chimaltenango, December 12, 190 Annex 42. Report of Dr. José Ángel Solís Ovalle, Psychologist of the Juvenile Trial Court of Chimaltenango, December 12, 191 Annex 42. Report of Dr. José Ángel Solís Ovalle, Psychologist of the Juvenile Trial Court of Chimaltenango, December 12, 2000. 2000. 2000. 192 Annex 43. Social Case 150-2000, Marco Antonio Gómez Moya, social study of Mrs. Flor de Maria Ramírez and Mr. Gustavo Tobar, Case file 183-2000, March 13, 2001. 193 Annex 43. Social Case 150-2000, Marco Antonio Gómez Moya, social study of Mrs. Flor de Maria Ramírez and Mr. Gustavo Tobar, Case file 183-2000, March 13, 2001. 194 Annex 44. National Civilian Police Force of Guatemala, Criminal Investigation Service, Juveniles and Missing Persons Section, Investigator Gilberto Arturo Salas Tornez, Report of June 4, 2001. Annex 2.8. 195 Annex 44. National Civilian Police Force of Guatemala, Criminal Investigation Service, Juveniles and Missing Persons Section, Investigator Gilberto Arturo Salas Tornez, Report of June 4, 2001. Annex 2.8. 21