CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 2.6 Despite many complaints, F.R.C. was only convicted once, on 24 October 2000, on a charge of harassment. The Juzgado de Instrucción núm. 1 de Coslada (Trial Court No. 1 of Coslada) considered it proved that F.R.C. had been stalking and disturbing the author, constantly harassing her. However, the penalty imposed was only a fine of 45 euros. 2.7 The courts issued protective orders for the author. However, only one of them, issued on 1 September 2000 by the Juzgado de Instrucción núm. 5 de Coslada (Trial Court No. 5 of Coslada) and valid for two months, included Andrea. F.R.C. appealed it and the court left it unenforced with respect to Andrea, considering that the order hampered the visit regime and could seriously harm relations between father and daughter. Other court orders protecting the author were violated by F.R.C. without legal consequence to him. 2.8 In the framework of the guardianship and custody of Andrea, the author asserted that visits with her father were negatively affecting the child’s mental health and requested a psychological examination. For that reason the court called Andrea to appear on 11 December 2000. During the appearance the girl said, among other things, that she did not like being with her father “because he did not treat her well” and “tore up her paintings”. 2.9 On 31 January 2001, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia núm. 1 de Navalcarnero (Court of First Instance No. 1 of Navalcarnero) drew up a provisional schedule of supervised visits monitored by social services, starting on 8 February 2001 and limited to Thursdays from 6 to 7 p.m. at the Mejorada Velilla social services centre. 2.10 On 30 May 2001, the social worker in charge of monitoring sent a report to the court suggesting that the interaction between father and daughter might best take place in another context, so that they could relate to each other more naturally. She also said that F.R.C., through his daughter, transmitted messages indirectly to the author, to which Andrea did not know how to react. The author wrote to the court to express her disagreement with the report and requested that the supervised visit regime be continued. 2.11 In September 2001, at the author’s request, the court authorized a psychological evaluation of herself, Andrea and F.R.C. The corresponding report, dated 24 September 2001, proposed that visits should gradually be normalized so that by the end of six months, Andrea should be able to spend almost a full day with her father, with no overnight and without the social worker; and making it possible to be with her father a full weekend with no overnight. If at the end of a year the relationship had been completely normalized, the possibility for Andrea to begin spending the night in the father’s home might be considered. 1 2.12 On 27 November 2001, the court entered the order of marital separation, which disregarded the numerous complaints of abuse made by the author and did not refer to habitual ill-treatment as being the cause of the separation. Regarding the regime of visits, the order retained the restricted regime with supervision for a period of one month, gradually expanding it in accordance with the behaviour of F.R.C. Depending on a favourable report from the visit supervision centre, a second stage of six months was envisaged, during which the Thursday visits would last from school dismissal until 8 p.m. and would be unsupervised. After six months, depending on a favourable report from social 1 4 With regard to F.R.C., the report observes “an obsessive-compulsive disorder with aspects of pathological jealousy and a tendency to distort reality which could degenerate into a disorder similar to paranoia”. 14-59288