significant.” In addition, it indicated that the crux of the matter is the conflict between the biological father’s subjective right to have his daughter, which is resolved taking into consideration the time elapsed from the day after her birth to the date of the judgment, “which makes it totally undesirable to change the child’s situation, owing to the pernicious effects this would have on her psyche and the development of her personality.” The determination of the best interest of the child “is full of subjectivities and depends on the scale of values of the judge, of his ideological formation, of his life experience, and also of those who take part in the decision, which, in addition, is arbitrary, because when the results become evident, time will have consumed many years of the life of [M].”39 38. On December 4, 2003, Mr. Fornerón filed a special federal appeal, which was denied on April 2, 2003, because it did not comply with the formal requirements of admissibility.40 Case entitled “Fornerón Leonardo Aníbal Javier Ref/Visiting rights,” file No. 3768 39. On November 15, 2001, Mr. Fornerón filed proceedings for visiting rights. On March 13, 2002, the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario del Tala declared itself incompetent “because the pre-adoption guardianship of the [child] was being processed […] before the Civil Court of Victoria,” a decision that Mr. Fornerón appealed on March 18, 2002. On April 18, 2002, Mr. Fornerón’s lawyer, “[b]ased on the status of the case file and the time that had elapsed without the appeal having been admitted, ask[ed] that the case file be forwarded to the court of Victoria, [province] of Entre Rios.” On April 22, 2002, orders were given for the case file to be forwarded to the Civil and Commercial Court of Victoria. On November 25, 2003, Mr. Fornerón reiterated his request that a visiting regime be established. The first instance judge of Victoria declared himself competent to hear the case on April 7, 2004. On April 8, 2005, Mr. Fornerón appeared “spontaneously” and “without his lawyer” requesting “that a hearing be convened to establish a visiting regime.” 41 The hearing was held on April 29, 2005, with the presence of Mr. Fornerón and the couple B-Z.42 40. On May 19, 2005, Mr. Fornerón’s lawyer submitted his proposal for a visiting regime, indicating that the expert witness he offered had recommended, inter alia, that the meetings should take place close to where M lived; hence, Mr. Fornerón’s representative proposed “the Permanent Human Rights Assembly as the appropriate environment for the meetings between the [child] and her father.” That same day, he requested the joinder of 39 Cf. Judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, supra note 38, folios 234, 235, 240 and 241. 40 Cf. Special federal appeal of December 4, 2003 and judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos of April 2, 2004 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachments 19 and 20, folios 246 to 266). In its judgment, the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos denied the appeal, inter alia, because “the appellant had not complied with the formal requirement that the appeal brief must be sufficient in itself, avoiding any consideration about the background or facts of the case […], entering directly into the grounds for the appeal, all of which would prevent its formal admissibility. Despite this […], it should also be specified that the attempted appeal is not admissible either because the federal aspect was not introduced appropriately and opportunely on the first occasion that the jurisdictional proceeding offered the appellant.” 41 Cf. Brief filing proceedings on visiting rights of November 15, 2001; decision of the Civil Judge of Rosario del Tala of March 13, 2002; brief of Mr. Fornerón’s lawyer requesting that the case file be forwarded of April 18, 2002; order to forward the case file of the Civil Judge of Rosario del Tala of April 22, 2002; brief requesting a visiting regime of November 25, 2003; brief of the first instance judge of Victoria of November 25, 2003; brief answering the request of the first instance judge of Victoria of November 25, 2003; Declaration of competence of the first instance judge of Victoria of April 7, 2004; record of the appearance of Mr. Fornerón before the first instance judge of Victoria of April 8, 2005, and record of hearing held on April 29, 2005 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachments 21, 23, 24 and 25, folios 268 to 271, 303 to 305, 307, 308, 314, 316, 317, 321, 329 and 331). 42 In the summons to the hearing, the judge convened Mr. Fornerón and the couple B-Z with the child. 14