12 observations a bill to amend several articles of the Adoption Law as an “example of steps taken by the State to prevent the repetition of situations such as that of the child L.M.” 11. Thus, the explanatory statement for the bill presented by the State indicates that the current Adoption Law “gives rise to a situation that enables the custody of children not yet declared available for adoption to be granted to families with clear intentions to adopt, omitting the technical procedures relating to the maintenance of the ties between the child and his or her biological family, without having exhausted the mechanisms for maintaining the biological ties and, in most cases, giving priority to using adoption as a first measure rather than as an exceptional measure.” In this regard, the text adds that “the possibility granted by the Law [...] to families awarded custody to be able to adopt children after custody has been in effect for two years, tacitly gave rise to the appearance of a mechanism known as pre-adoption custody [which is] incompatible with the comprehensive protection doctrine, because it does not respect the child’s right and best interest to live with his or her family of origin as a first measure, in which the child and its family receive sufficient support to strengthen and maintain the original ties.” The text continues, by indicating that, “[c]ompletely to the contrary, the concept of pre-adoption custody is used in a discretionary manner as an abbreviated method to obtain and legitimize irregular situations very closely related to the sale and trafficking of boys, girls, and adolescents; this is clearly revealed by the statistics of the Adoption Center, which show that, in 2010, 82% of the adoption judgments were granted based on pre-adoption custody.” The explanatory statement concludes by indicating that, in view of the description of the background facts relating to the jurisdictional and administrative procedures that establish the mechanism of pre-adoption custody, in clear violation of the best interest of the child, the comprehensive protection doctrine, and the specific functions of the Adoption Center, the jurisdictional legal framework must be amended.” 12. In the instant matter, as the Commission has indicated, “the main point of the request is that no decision has been reached in any of the cases regarding the custody and care of L.M., and no decision has been reached regarding the biological relationship with his nuclear and/or extended family.” In other words, “his custody and care situation remains unresolved, while the requests that seek to establish contacts with his biological family remain undecided.” Consequently, the Commission argues that this “series of elements constitutes a situation of extreme gravity that may affect, irreparably, the proposed beneficiary’s rights to identity, mental integrity, and to a family” and, consequently, requests the State to “expedite the domestic proceedings and decisions regarding L.M.’s best interest, including, as soon as possible, the required decisions on his contact with his biological family.” 13. The Court does not have to rule on whether the different proceedings in the domestic sphere are being processed in keeping with the American Convention, or in accordance with the special obligations of protection for children and adolescents. If appropriate, these aspects could be debated in the context of the petition filed before the Inter-American Commission. In this matter, the Court is only called on to determine whether the proposed beneficiary is in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that responds to the need to prevent irreparable damage. The request presented in favor of L.M. intends to protect his rights to mental integrity, identity, and a family. 14. Regarding the right to protection of the child’s family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention, the Court has underscored that this means that the State is obliged not only to establish and directly execute measures for the protection of children, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, but also to encourage, in the broadest possible way, the development and strength of the family unit.38 Consequently, the 38 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17,