EN | FR | ES

Case Law Search

New search

CASE

Download full text ES

Case Name

S.A.G. s/restitucion internacional solicita restitucion de la menor

INCADAT reference

HC/E/PY 1332

Court

Country

ARGENTINA

Name

Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación

Level

Superior Appellate Court

Judge(s)
Enrique Santiago Petracchi, Elena I. Highton de Nolasco, Carlos S. Fayt, Juan Carlos Maqueda, E. Raul Zaffaroni, Ricardo Luis Lorenzetti, Carmen M. Argibay

States involved

Requesting State

ARGENTINA

Requested State

PARAGUAY

Decision

Date

20 December 2005

Status

Final

Grounds

Non-Convention Issues | Procedural Matters

Order

Appeal allowed, return ordered

HC article(s) Considered

-

HC article(s) Relied Upon

-

Other provisions
Articles 1, 11 (b), 15, 25 of the Interamerican Convention on the International Return of Children
Authorities | Cases referred to
W., E. M. c. O., M. G., Supreme Court, June 14, 1995 HC/E/AR/362.
Published in
http://servicios.csjn.gov.ar/confal/ConsultaCompletaFallos.do?method=verDocumentos&id=598120

INCADAT comment

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

Inter-American Convention
Inter-American Convention

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | ES

Facts

The case concerns a child of approximately three years old who lived in Paraguay with her parents. On 27 January 2001, after the mother separated from the father, she moved together with the child to Córdoba, Argentina, to where the maternal grandparents of the child lived.

The father did not authorise this move but when the mother informed him he moved to Córdoba and requested to see the child. His request was granted. The father then petitioned the return of the child under the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children.

The case was initiated before a first instance court in Córdoba (Juzgado de Familia de 1° Nominación de Córdoba) due to a letter rogatory presented by the Attorney's Office of the Province of Córdoba, sent by the first instance judge (Juez de Primera Instancia de la Niñez y Adolescencia del Segundo turno) from the city of Asunción, Paraguay. In the letter rogatory, inquiries were made as to the location of the child and the return of the child to his father was requested so that they could both return to Paraguay.

The mother did not rise any objection to the finding of unlawful removal but she filed a complaint against the father for alleged mistreatment and domestic violence to her and the child. On 3 March 2003, the first instance court refused the return of the child because it considered that the grave risk exception of Article 11.b of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children had been established.

The father filed an appeal against the decision. On 23 June 2003, the High Court of Justice of the Province of Córdoba (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Provincia de Córdoba) admitted the appeal, annulled the judgment of the lower court, and ordered the return of the child to the Republic of Paraguay. The mother filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court.

Ruling

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal of the child to Argentina was considered wrongful. The grave risk of harm exception envisaged in Article 11.b of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children was not found to be established.

Grounds

Non-Convention Issues

-

Procedural Matters

The case lasted approximately four years and ten months from the moment the father initiated the proceedings for the return of the child until the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the return. In accordance with the suggestion of the Attorney and prior to the final decision, the Court exceptionally ordered a special expert report on the child to examine if compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court could have a physical impact on the child or cause serious psychological disturbances.

The object of ordering this experts' report was to eliminate the doubts that remained as a result of the lack of direct experts' reports in the case and, if recommended in the report, to order that the child be accompanied by a provisional guardian. Based on that special expert report, the Court considered that no grave risk had been established to dismiss the prompt return of the child.

Additionally, the Court requested the family judge in charge of the case to set and supervise the conditions for the return so that it would be done in a manner that would minimise possible risks. Although the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children was applicable in this case, the Court applied 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention standards since both Conventions share the same objectives and principles.

Authors of the summary: Professor Nieve Rubaja and Sabrina Anabel Silva, Argentina

INCADAT comment

Inter-American Convention

Preparation of INCADAT commentary progress.