CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 Committee considers that internal remedies have been exhausted with regard to the complaint concerning the establishment by the authorities of an unsupervised visiting regime and the lack of redress for the negative consequences resulting from that regime. 8.7 Regarding the State party’s objection to admissibility under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee considers that the author’s complaints regarding the introduction of the unsupervised visit scheme and redress for the death of Andrea have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. Consequently, and there being no other reasons to prevent it, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in light of all the information placed at its disposal by the author and by the State party, in accordance with the provisions of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The question before the Committee is that of the responsibility of the State for not having fulfilled its duty of diligence in connection with the events that led to the murder of the author’s daughter. The Committee is satisfied that the murder took place in a context of domestic violence which continued for several years and which the State party does not question. This context also includes the refusal of F.R.C. to pay support and the dispute concerning the use of the family dwelling. The Committee considers that its task is to review, in light of the Convention, decisions taken by the national authorities within their purview and to determine whether, in making those decisions, the authorities took into account the obligations arising from the Convention. In the present case, the decisive factor is therefore whether those authorities applied principles of due diligence and took reasonable steps with a view to protecting the author and her daughter from possible risks in a situation of continuing domestic violence. 9.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument to the effect that the behaviour of F.R.C. was unforeseeable and that nothing in the psychological and social services reports could lead one to predict a danger to the life or physical or mental health of the child. In light of the information contained in the record the Committee cannot agree with this assertion for the following reasons. In the first place, the Committee notes that the final separation of the spouses, decreed on 27 November 2001, was preceded by many violent incidents directed at the author, which the child often witnessed. The courts issued protective orders, which F.R.C. would disregard without this implying any legal consequences for him. The only time he was convicted was in 2000, for conduct constituting harassment, but the punishment was limited to a fine amounting to 45 euros. In the second place, despite the author’s requests, the orders of protection issued by the authorities did not include the child, and an order issued in 2000 in the child’s favour was left without effect, as the result of an appeal filed by F.R.C., in order not to jeopardize relations between father and daughter. In the third place, the social services reports repeatedly stressed that F.R.C. was using his daughter to transmit messages of animosity to the author. They also pointed to F.R.C.’s difficulties in adjusting to the child’s young age. In the fourth place, a psychological report of 24 September 2001 observed in F.R.C. “an obsessivecompulsive disorder with aspects of pathological jealousy and a tendency to distort reality which could degenerate into a disorder similar to paranoia”. In the fifth place, during the months of unsupervised visits, several reports from social 14-59288 15