201. The Commission notes that after the Ramírez brothers’ adoptions were registered, Mr. Tobar filed a motion with the court claiming that several applications were still pending resolution in the motion for review lodged by Mrs. Ramírez. He also questioned the various irregularities that occurred during the abandonment declaration proceedings and the Ramírez brothers’ adoption procedure, including the fact that he was unable to participate in the proceedings despite being the biological father, and that he should have been given the possibility of defending himself against the declaration of abandonment and/or of granting his consent for the adoptions to proceed. 202. The IACHR believes that the court’s decision to rule Mr. Tobar’s application inadmissible was inadequately grounded. The Commission notes that the court ruled that his application was untimely, without stating the deadline applied or the corresponding legal basis. In addition, the court stated that Mr. Tobar had not been a party to the proceedings which, rather than grounds for inadmissibility, should have been examined as a violation of his right of defense with respect to his family life and, consequently, should have been immediately remedied. The Commission again points out that Mr. Tobar, as Osmín’s biological father, was entitled to participate and be heard in all proceedings related to his family ties with his son. Furthermore, the Commission recalls that the State must exhaust the process of locating parents and maintenance of the family ties prior to any final decision on the situation of the children. 203. The Commission notes that although the judicial authorities acknowledged the irregularities in the declaration of abandonment and adoption proceedings on several occasions, it took no steps to correct those errors, such as revoking the recently finalized adoptions or ensuring that the proceedings that were in violation of due process did not continue to affect the children’s legal situation. 204. The Commission further notes that the court’s failure regarding Mr. Gustavo Tobar’s participation was subsequently acknowledged by the Court of Appeal which, in response to an amparo relief filing he lodged, found that his lack of participation in the proceedings “violates the applicant’s right of defense in that it prevents him from asserting his status as the father of the minor Osmín (…) so that the child could be handed over to him.” 205. After a hearing was held under the motion for review, at which both Mr. Tobar and Mrs. Ramírez were able to present their claims, the court asked the Attorney General’s office to report on the situation of the Ramírez children’s parents. The Commission believes that the report the Attorney General’s office submitted failed to comply with the international standards referred to above in that it did not examine: (i) the parents’ specific and individual situations as regards their possible custody of the children; (ii) the possibility of adopting measures to support the parents in assuming their responsibilities; or (iii) the possibility of the children’s extended family being given custody. On the contrary, the IACHR notes that the Attorney General’s office merely presented a copy of the report prepared by the Child Care Residence. 206. In a further recognition of irregularities, the Commission notes that in the order of June 20, 2000, adopted under the motion for review, the court concluded that “multiple substantive errors were committed in the processing of this case, which affected the corresponding constitutional rights and guarantees of Mrs. Flor de Maria Ramírez Escobar as a party to the proceedings, and which also violated the legal formalities of due process.” Accordingly, the IACHR notes that the court itself acknowledged some of the shortcomings that arose during the review proceedings, in particular: (i) the failure to provide an opportunity for evidence to be presented after Mrs. Ramírez lodged the motion for review; (ii) the failure to serve notice of several orders between 1997 and 1999; and (iii) the existence of several filings presented by Mrs. Ramírez that were not resolved. In this regard, the Commission considers that this situation violates the rights of the Ramirez children, considering the exceptional diligence principle that should govern all proceedings in respect of the care of a child. 207. The Commission notes that on November 7, 2000, the court upheld the motion for review. The court acknowledged a further infringement of the right of defense of the Ramírez children’s parents by stating that they were not given “adequate occasion to demonstrate that they represent the ideal source of family, emotional, and psychological support for their (…) children.” Such situation generated a serious violation of the right of children to live in their family. 41