208. In light of this decision, the numerous acknowledgments of irregularities at the domestic level, and the judiciary’s new psychological and social reports finding that Mrs. Ramírez and Mr. Tobar were capable of caring for their children, the Commission notes that the State did not take the measures necessary to determine—seriously and with the exceptional diligence required in cases of this kind—the viability and desirability of reuniting the Ramírez brothers with their biological family. 209. First of all, the Commission notes that on August 31, 2001, the court resolved to summon the two adoptive families to make statements, including the Ramírez brothers. Nevertheless, it was not until almost four months later that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the court that the application had to be sent to the United States, and not to that country’s embassy in Guatemala. 210. Second, the IACHR notes that on June 20, 2000, the court requested that Mr. Tobar defray the costs required for statements to be taken from the adoptive parents, otherwise the case file would be archived. In this regard, the Commission believes that after its own judicial authorities had acknowledged the irregularities during the review of the declaration of abandonment and subsequent adoption of the children, the State had the obligation of remedying those shortcomings to the best of its ability, with exceptional diligence, in accordance with the children’s best interests, and without imposing economic or other burdens on the victims of the irregularities it had detected. 211. Finally, the Commission notes that there was no permanent and effective participation by any specialized agency to protect the Ramírez brothers’ rights. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has ruled that: The Court considers that, in order to facilitate access to justice for vulnerable persons, the participation of other State institutions and bodies is essential so that they can assist in the judicial proceedings in order to ensure that the rights of such persons are protected and defended.282 (…) Moreover, the Court recalls that recalls that while procedural rights and their related guarantees apply to all persons, in the case of children the exercise of those rights requires, due to their special status as minors, that certain specific measures be adopted for them to effectively enjoy those rights and guarantees. 283 The types of specific measures are determined by each State Party and may include direct or joint representation,284 as the case may be, of the minor in order to reinforce the guarantee of the principle of the best interests of the minor.285 212. The Commission believes that the foregoing is fully applicable to both the declaration of abandonment and the adoption proceedings, which were making crucial decisions regarding the lives and futures of both children. 213. In consideration whereof, the Commission concludes that the motion for review processed after the adoption of the Ramírez brothers continued to perpetuate the violations already established in this 282 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 241. 283 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 241. Citing: Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 98. 284 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 241. Citing, mutatis mutandis: Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 199. 285 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246. Para. 242. 42