CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 courts. Based on stereotypes, the right of visitation was seen merely as a right of the father and not as a right of the child as well. The best interests of the child would have required if not eliminating the visits, at least limiting them to supervised visits of short duration. 3.10 F.R.C. was not sanctioned for his repeated assaults on the author or his non-payment of child support. Despite a request by the author, F.R.C. was also not required to engage in therapy with a view to normalizing his relationship with his daughter. The authorities’ assessment of the risk to the author and her daughter seems to have been obscured by prejudice and stereotypes that lead to questioning the credibility of women victims of domestic violence. 3.11 Based on the foregoing, the author maintains that the State party did not discharge its duty of diligence and violated article 5 (a), together with article 2 of the Convention. 3.12 Regarding article 16, the author alleges that she was discriminated against in the decisions relating to her separation and divorce. The authorities, bowing to their prejudices, did not take into account the situation of violence being experienced by the author and her daughter in making decisions about the terms of the separation and the visiting regime. Nor did they take steps to ensure that F.R.C. would carry out his obligation to contribute to the support of the child, despite the author’s repeated demands. All of this placed the author in an extremely vulnerable position. Not until 21 April 2003, three days before the child’s murder and three years after the author had first filed her complaint against F.R.C. for non-payment of support, did the office of the prosecutor take action against him. At that point, the debt he owed to the author amounted to 6,659 euros. These facts constitute a violation of article 16, especially with respect to the lack of regard for the principle of the best interests of the child, singly and jointly with articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. 3.13 F.R.C. used his daughter to hurt both of them and used his right of visitation for that purpose. There was continued insistence by social services and the courts seeking to “normalize” the relationship between the child and the abuser, without taking into account the child’s interests and opinions. The authorities did not effectively evaluate whether the abuser was a person who deserved having visits, supervised or not, with a child whom he constantly abused. To the contrary, the authorities assumed the right of a father to maintain contact regardless of his actions in the family context. The administrative and judicial authorities allowed F.R.C. to shirk his obligations under article 16, paragraph 1 (c), (d) and (f). This occurred in a context of discrimination in which prejudices and stereotypes influenced the decisions of these authorities, in violation of articles 2, 5 and 16 of the Convention. State party’s submission on admissibility 4.1 On 14 January 2013, the State party made a submission on admissibility, maintaining that the communication was inadmissible because domestic remedies had not been properly exhausted. It alleged as a subsidiary argument that the communication was unsubstantiated. 4.2 In all of the answers to the claim of pecuniary responsibility of the State, the administration and courts informed the author that the appropriate way to seek and obtain, as the case may be, compensation for a miscarriage of justice was not to seek damages for the malfunctioning administration of justice but 8 14-59288