age, his views and opinions were taken into account by the court, and a psychologists board was formed to determine the feasibility of return. The Commission appreciates those actions. However, taking into account the precautionary nature of the order for that interaction, subsequent to locating D, it was necessary for the State to take steps that would achieve his interaction with his father to determine whether his return would be possible, especially considering the existing delay and the unlawful removal that the child had undergone. 157. Upon comprehensive analysis of the information contained in the file, the Commission notes that interaction was ordered for very few dates, and it does not show that it took place on all of them: July 2015 (taking place on July 15, 17, and 20 to 23), August 2015, October 2016 (October 20 to 31, 2016, although the record does not show that these took place), November 2016, January 2017 (it was requested that they take place from January 16 to 20, but the file does not show that this took place), February 25 and 26, 2017 (the record does not show that this took place); July 15 to 19, 2017; on November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order for the restoration of ties and established a plan for interaction between D. and his father by agreement with the guardian (the record does not show that this was carried out). 158. Moreover, although the record shows that a social worker noted the importance, for effective interaction, of also providing the father with tools, it being a notorious difficulty that the child lived in another country, the record does not show that steps were taken to that end, seeking gradually to build a relationship with D. In fact, the Commission notes that several of the psychological evaluations prepared were designed to evaluate D’s readiness for return. The record does not, however, show that the necessary supports were effectively provided for him to interact with his father and so that he could be returned. 159. In that regard, the IACHR considers that it was necessary for certain aspects to be ensured so that the interaction was effective, such as meetings to prepare D and his father prior to the meetings, regular and ongoing psychological support for D., and that the environment in which the meetings took place was one of trust, ensuring an environment that would allow for effective interaction between father and son. 160. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State did not make the necessary efforts effectively to develop a plan for interaction that could assist in implementing the judgment for international return of the child. In this scenario of lack of effective measures to achieve interaction with a view to return, the Commission notes that on March 31, 2017, an order was issued as a precautionary measure for D to remain in Paraguay, a matter ultimately heard by the Supreme Court in May 2019. In particular, the Court for Children and Adolescents of Caacupé admitted the precautionary measure for D to remain in Paraguay, deciding that he would continue living “in his habitual domicile” of the city of Atyrá, Paraguay. - The child D remaining in Paraguay 161. The Commission notes that the precautionary measure decision issued on March 31, 2017, took into consideration Law 1.680/2001, Article 3, regarding the child’s best interests, Articles 3, 5, and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention (emphasizing especially Article 13.b on grave risk of physical or psychological harm or if the [“]child[”] objects to being returned). The court reasoned that the place of habitual residence was at present Atyrá, and considered that since over 11 years had gone by without it having been possible to implement the August 14, 2006 judgment, “[events have] given rise to other rights as the result of the child remaining in our country since the age of two, because he is now fully rooted in Paraguayan society,” taking into account the report of the psychologists board and the child’s statements to the judiciary expressing his wish to remain in Paraguay. The Court noted that it had made efforts for D. and his father to interact, using different methods of bringing them together, and that after the nearly two years of the restoration of ties ordered, they had not met with success. 162. According to the standards previously reviewed, the State must take the positive steps required to safeguard the rights of the boy or girl themselves, and of the parent impacted by the abduction, and of return is ordered, it must be handled with exceptional diligence and celerity. Without prejudice thereto, in order to consider whether to admit the application of an exception, it would be required to determine whether return would disproportionately impact the rights of the boy or girl according to the exceptions for which the Convention provides. For such analysis, the authorities must review different aspects. Among them, for example,