168. Second, the IACHR notes that, on that same day, Mrs. Ramírez went to court to request the return of her children, explaining that she was paying a neighbor to look after he children while she was at work. The Commission observes that said request was not taken into consideration by the court and no order was issued to check the allegations presented by the biological mother. The Commission further notes that, as of that day 18 days elapsed before the court took any step whatsoever to decide upon the situation of the Ramírez brothers, especially in the light of the allegations presented by Mrs. Ramírez and the fact that they had been placed in an institution. 169. Third, the Commission observes that the ruling of January 27, 1997 whereby the court ratified placement of the Ramírez brothers in the Child Care Residence of the Association did not remedy the above-mentioned irregularities. Nor did this ruling examine the information provided by Mrs. Ramírez or explore measures other than placement of the children in an institution, such as the possibility of investigating more in depth the situation of Mrs. Ramírez to assess the relevance or need to provide her with support if necessary, looking for the father of at least one of the children, looking for the extended family, or evaluating the conditions for reestablishing ties during the children's institutional placement. 170. Fourth, the Commission notes that the judicial authority ordered the Child Care Residence of the Association to conduct the social studies of Mrs. Ramírez, although it was not clear how this institution was technically suitable to reach decisions of that kind to ensure the best interests of the children. Nor is there any information available that might indicate that said institution, which had an adoption program, was able to act independently and impartially in conducting studies that were so essential for the situation of the children. On the contrary, the absence of technical suitability, independence, and impartiality was evident in the way the Child Care Residence of the Association conducted the social studies. 171. With respect to the social study conducted on February 3, 1997, the IACHR observes that the conclusions reached by said report were based exclusively on interviews without any reference, in the report, to the names of the persons who provided their testimony. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the report indicated that the children had bruises and scars, although there was no documentary or expert evidence whatsoever to substantiate said situation or reference to any medical evaluation. It must be mentioned here that this ruling, which is not supported by any evidence, contradicts the report made by the Attorney General's Office on January 9, 1997, indicating that the children "did not show any signs of physical aggression." Neither the evident absence of motivation or proof in this report, nor the contradiction between this report and that of the Attorney General's Office on a subject that was of the utmost importance such as signs of physical aggression were corrected by any judicial authority whatsoever throughout the proceedings of the official declaration of abandonment. 172. The Commission observes in addition that, in drafting this report, the State failed to fulfill its obligations to hear the children, especially Osmín Tobar Ramírez, who was seven years old at the time and whose opinion had to be taken into account and appraised in keeping with his maturity. The IACHR observes that, in said report, there is no indication that Osmín Tobar Ramírez had been listened to with respect to the situation of his family. Nor does it appear that, for the drafting of this report, the statement of Mrs. Ramírez or Mr. Gustavo Tobar, father of Osmín Tobar Ramírez, or that of any other member of the family had been requested so that the evaluation could be conducted on the basis of all the necessary elements. 173. The Commission notes that the report recommended the issuance of a judicial declaration of abandonment of the children "so that they could be included in the adoptions program" of the institution that drafted the report. The Commission reminds the parties involved that, in accordance with what was described in the present report, adoption –which is an exceptional protection measure- entails a permanent removal of a child from his/her biological family, as a result of which said removal must be justified in the best interests of the child as decided upon in line with the above-mentioned standards stemming from the corpus juris pertaining to the rights of the child. Regarding this, in addition to the above-mentioned deficiencies in providing evidence and substantiating due cause, the report does not make any mention whatsoever of possibilities other than adoption or of investigating the feasibility of other options. Nor did this report provide any motivation behind the reasons for deciding that adoption was the most appropriate measure. 36