11 b) The preceding decision was adopted within the main proceeding concerning the custody of L.M., initiated on August 5, 2009 (almost since the child’s birth). All those involved are participating in this proceeding. According to information provided by the State to the Commission, all the procedural norms that govern the children and adolescents jurisdiction establish summary proceedings, so that the first instance court has merely six days to deliver a ruling, and the courts of appeal have only 10 days in which to rule.37 This case is paralyzed owing to the current apparent impossibility of establishing an appeals court. c) On November 16, 2009, L.S. and V.H.R., apparently the biological mother and father, registered L.M. as their son with the Civil Registration Directorate General; d) In November 2009 and February 2010, respectively, the O-A family filed two petitions against L.S. and V.H.R., namely: for forfeit of parental authority against the former and to challenge the paternity of the latter. In the second proceeding, the court ordered three DNA tests to confirm the biological relationship; only one of these had been performed (the results of which were not advised), because the O-A family has not come forward with the child for the second test and has filed an appeal against the decision expanding the evidence. e) Since July 2010, a criminal proceeding has apparently been underway for “abandonment and other” offenses against V.H.R. and L.S., in which charges have been filed as well as a request to hear the case in a public oral proceeding. f) In November 2010, members of the child’s biological and “extended” family, in other words his father, mother and maternal grandparents, filed petitions requesting custody of the child, and a “provisional contact regime” with him, in three judicial proceedings, which have not been decided; g) Seven domestic judicial proceedings are underway in relation to the matter of the child L.M., and no final decision has been reached in any of them. In several of these proceedings there have been a number of disqualifications and recusals of the judges from the children and adolescents jurisdiction, whose turn it was to hear the case, and this has caused major delays. 9. The Court observes that the child L.M. is in the provisional custody of a family that, when custody was granted, was taking steps to adopt a child. Thus, since the birth of the child L.M. – who is almost two years old – he has been separated from his biological family, without, currently, having any type of contact with the alleged family members; in other words, in the terms used in the request for provisional measures, with his biological “nuclear” and “extended” family. This is occurring because no final judgment has been handed down in the said proceedings and owing to the alleged lack of response by the domestic courts to the specific requests for custody and for a “contact regime” that would allow the child and his family of origin to maintain a relationship through a visiting regime. 10. Regarding this failure to “decide the proceedings,” the State indicated that this was not due “to the indifference of the domestic courts, but rather to compliance with the current laws, which are in keeping with the international treaties signed by the Republic of Paraguay.” Although it is not incumbent on the Court, within the framework of a request for provisional measures, to assess the compatibility of the laws of Paraguay with the Convention or other treaties, it is relevant that the State submitted as an attachment to its 37 Cf. Response of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of August 23, 2010 (attachment 13 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission).