CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 6.3 In the light of the circumstances, the decree of separation, issued on 27 November 2001, assigned guardianship and custody to the mother and provided for continued exercise of joint parental authority. In the months that followed, after observation of father-daughter relations, a report was requested from social services on how well the visits had gone and whether it was advisable to move on to the second system provided for in the decision (unsupervised visits). The report stated that although the father was very insistent and dominant in his relationship with his daughter, not adapting well to her age, there was nothing unusual about the father-daughter relationship. In the light of that report, on 6 May 2002, the court considered that there was no reason to prevent starting the second visitation scheme. The author appealed this decision but the court maintained it. However, the court determined that the decision was not irrevocable and would be reconsidered if there were signs of harm to the child. At the court’s request, social services issued a new report on 3 December 2002 which concluded that “there was satisfactory psychosocial development in the child”; that “it was important to bear in mind the child’s wish, for the moment, not to spend more time with the father than that allocated in the visit scheme”; and that “it was felt necessary to maintain continuous monitoring of the visit regime”. In the light of this report, the office of the Attorney General considered that the time had not yet come to transition to an overnight regime. In a new report, on 8 January 2003, it was decided to continue the existing regime. On 13 February 2003, the court decided to continue the existing visit scheme and adopted measures for garnishment of the father’s wages. 6.4 The authorities did not act negligently and the events can only be attributed to F.R.C. The decision of the High Court expresses the view of the Government and also firmly makes clear that the procedural approach followed by the author was inadequate, that the judicial organ which dealt with the separation considered the concurrent circumstances and psychological reports and adopted decisions on care and guardianship of the child and on the visit scheme, opting for a gradual and very detailed scheme with different stages through which the father-daughter relationship might go. In May 2002, by judicial decision, supervised visits were replaced by unsupervised visits. This regime was maintained for several months, during which it was continuously monitored and positive reports were issued. It was even contemplated to move on to a broader system of visits, without any perceived danger to the child, until, in the afternoon of 24 April 2003, the father murdered her. 6.5 Despite the complex family context and the deadly conclusion, there is not the slightest clue among the exhaustive psychological reports and the reports of each and every one of the supervised visits that there existed a danger to the life or physical or mental health of the child. There was never a moment in which the child was not being monitored and watched over by the social services under the court, always working in her interest. Nothing in her immediate setting could have foreshadowed the dramatic reaction of F.R.C. The weapon in his possession was illegal, since he did not have a weapons licence, nor was he known to be a gun enthusiast. 6.6 With regard to the author’s complaints of a general character, under articles 2, 5 and 16 of the Convention relating to structural questions concerning discrimination against women in Spain, the State party rejects the author’s assertions that at the time of the events there was in Spain no defence against gender violence and that discriminatory practices, actions and stereotypes prevailed on an institutional and judicial scale. The State party provides a list of actions undertaken to eradicate all forms of discrimination against women since 1987, including the Comprehensive Plans of Action against Domestic Violence I 14-59288 11