14 and to protect the best interest of the child, as well as to guarantee the rights that are potentially at risk until the dispute on merits has been resolved, and to ensure the practical effects of the decision eventually adopted. 17. As indicated, the child L.M. is currently almost 2 years old, and the proceedings concerning his guardianship, custody, parental authority, paternity, and family contact, are still being processed. The State attributes this length of time to the due observance by the domestic courts of domestic law and, indeed, when annulling the decision of the first instance judge that had ordered the restitution of the child to his biological father, the Children and Adolescents Court of Appeal found that a series of proceedings existed that needed to be conducted simultaneously, since their effects were interrelated (supra having seen paragraph 2(o)). It is worth noting that, also and notwithstanding the decision, the Court of Appeal itself indicated that the court appointed to hear the case could establish an interim measure of contact with the biological family.48 In addition, the domestic courts have received several technical reports, mainly from the Adoption Center of the Children and Adolescents Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice, recommending that the child L.M. not be separated from his family of origin.49 18. Based on the above, the mere passage of time may be a factor that favors the creation of ties with the foster family,50 which, in an eventual decision regarding the rights of the child, may become the main grounds for not changing the child’s actual situation,51 principally because the risk of seriously affecting the child’s emotional and psychological balance increases.52 In other words, the passage of time would inevitably constitute a Svensson v. Sweden No. 149/1996/770/967, 19 February 1998, paras. 39 and 42; Case of V.A.M. v. Serbia, No. 39177/05, 13 March 2007, paras. 99 and 101; Council of Europe, recommendation No. R(91)9, on emergency measures in family matters, 9 September 1991, principle 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5; European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, 20 May 1980, article 5; European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights, 25 January 1996, article 7 – “Duty to act speedily”; “Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice” adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010, principles 50 and 51, “Avoiding undue delay” and, mutatis mutandi, United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Mónaco et al. v. Argentina, A/50/40 vol. II, 3 April 1995, CCPR/C/53/D/400/1990, para 10.5. 48 Cf. Decision of the Children and Adolescents Court of Appeal of August 18, 2010 (attachment 15 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 49 In the first report, the Adoption Center observed that, given that “the biological parents ha[d] been found and that there [were] possibilities of reinsertion, [...] it was not appropriate at th[at] time to transfer the child from a foster family to a family with the intention of adopting.” Similarly, in November 2010, reports were issued indicating the pertinence of L.M. being reinserted into his biological family and, in March 2011, the same institution presented the “Report on the psychosocial and legal aspects of maintaining the relationship” in the context of the main custody proceeding, in which it was considered “desirable for the court to [...] [r]evoke the provisional custody of the child [L.M.] granted to O.O.Z. and E.A.P. [and] to order the family reinsertion of the child [L.M.] with his maternal grandparents [...] or with the biological father V.R., or the biological mother L.S., who are able to assume responsibility for raising and taking care of the child, mainly because the actual family group encourages mutual help and shared responsibilities.” Cf. Report of the Adoption Center of November 12, 2009, attachment 6 to the petition (attachment 8 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission); Report of the Technical Team of the Children and Adolescents Secretariat of November 20, 2009 (attachment 9 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission); Report of the Adoption Center of November 24, 2009, and Report of the Corazones por la Infancia Foundation of November 25, 2009. See also, Brief of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of September 21, 2010 (attachment 16 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission), and Report on the psychosocial and legal aspects of maintaining the relationship issued by the Adoption Center, dated March 10, 2011 (attachment 25 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 50 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7: Implementing child rights in early childhood, fortieth session, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1, 20 September 2006. paras. 16 and 18, and mutatis mutandis, ECHR, Case of Clemeno and others v. Italy, No 19537/03, 21 October 2008, paras. 53 and 60. 51 Cf. ECHR, Case of H, supra note 47, para. 89. 52 Cf. ECHR, Case of Sommerfeld, supra note 43, paras. 65, 88 and 90 and Case of Mikulić, supra note 43, para. 53