annulling the legal guardianship that had been established, which “was not legal.” In the judgment, adopted by two votes in favor and one against, the majority votes stated, inter alia, that: (a) the presence of the Children’s Ombudsman when the child was surrendered did not comply strictly with the legal requirements, because “only [guardianship] granted by the courts is admissible”; (b) the first instance judge should have warned that the criminal proceedings existed in relation to the facts, a circumstances that required “scrupulousness” in the procedural actions of the civil judge; (c) the psychological report considered by the first instance judge did not examine the ties between the child and the couple B-Z; there is no record that either the biological father or the said couple were interviewed, and it did not take into account the child’s right to identity, and neither did the first instance judge; (d) Mr. Fornerón cannot be attributed with inertia in his actions and, in addition, the acknowledgement of the child in the civil registry office “juridically and legally, and while his paternity was not contested, granted him the status invoked, with all the corresponding rights and obligations,” and (e) the consent that Mr. Fornerón, as the father, was bound to give for the guardianship with a view to adoption, did not exist in the case.36 36. On June 27, 2003, the couple B-Z filed an appeal based on the non-applicability of the law against the Chamber’s judgment revoking the legal guardianship.”37 On November 20, 2003, the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos declared the appeal admissible, revoked the Chamber’s decision and, consequently, confirmed the first instance judgment.38 The ruling considered, above all, the time that had elapsed. Among other matters, it indicated that the delay in the processing of the legal guardianship proceedings had influenced the decision to confirm the first instance judgment, based on the best interest of M, who had lived for more than three years, since her birth, with the couple B-Z. The ruling also indicated that the Chamber had not “indicated any inconsistency in the opinions of the experts” that it had taken into consideration in its judgment, which, in the opinion of one of the judges of the Superior Court of Justice should be interpreted as “arbitrary and capricious conduct by the judges” of the Chamber. 37. In addition, in its decision, the Superior Court of Justice indicated that, although Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the State’s obligation not to separate a child from its parents against their wishes, it also establishes an “exception based on review by the courts” that can establish this separation based on the best interest of the child, particularly in cases such as this one in which “the biological ties are not held with the parties involved, during which it was agreed to suspend the hearing “in order to initiate […] a process of mutual understanding and dialogue assisted by the inter-disciplinary team”; on March 17, 2003, another hearing was held at which it was agreed “to terminate the [mediation],” and (d) following the first hearing, the interdisciplinary team, the Children’s Ombudsman, and the Chamber Prosecutor produced their respective reports; the last two ruled in favor of confirming the first instance judgment. The inter-disciplinary team stated that the “return was desirable […] either within the framework of a process of gradual communication with the help of professionals, supervised by the courts,” which “could start now,” and recommended that, if return was decided, this should be when the child was between 5 and 6 years of age; in other words, when she was at a stage of mental age and development that enabled her to better understand the situation. Cf. Reports of the interdisciplinary team of August 16, 2002, and April 1, 2003; socio-environmental report on Mr. Fornerón of September 9, 2002; record of the hearing held before the First Court of the Second Chamber of Paraná on February 14, 2002; record of the mediation hearing before the Judiciary of the province of Entre Ríos of March 17, 2003; report of the Children’s Ombudsman of April 22, 2003, and report of the Chamber Prosecutor of April 25, 2003 (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folios 3336 to 3340, 3354, 3404, 3431, 3435 to 3437, 3441 to 3443, 3447 to 3450 and 3454). 36 Cf. Judgment of the First Court of the Second Chamber of Paraná of June 10, 2003 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 15, folios 127 to 169). 37 Cf. Appeal based on the non-applicability of the law filed on June 27, 2003 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 17, folios 173 to 194). 38 Cf. Judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, supra note 38, folios 214 to 244. 13