CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 rather through judicial error, as provided for in article 292.1 2 and following of the Organic Law on the Judiciary. In the decision of 15 October 2010, the Supreme Court recalled its jurisprudence that judicial error occurs when “the judge disregards unquestionable facts in a relationship that breaks the harmony of the legal order or the decision which mistakenly interprets the legal order, if it is an interpretation that cannot be sustained by any interpretative method in judicial practice”. Abnormal operation of the administration of justice encompasses any defect in the action of judges or tribunals, conceived as an organic complex in which persons, services and activities are encompassed. Each calls for a different procedure. Whereas compensation for error should be preceded by a judicial decision expressly acknowledging it, a claim for abnormal operation of the administration of justice does not require a prior judicial decision and is brought directly before the Ministry of Justice as prescribed by article 292 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary. 4.3 The author alleges that the action of the courts and social services was erroneous and that the tragedy should have been avoided because court decisions on the visiting regime and the reports on which they were based reveal that they were mishandled, showing that there were 47 complaints against her ex-husband which went unanswered. These circumstances clearly imply judicial error, whose recognition should be established through a review appeal before the Supreme Court. 3 Not having filed it, the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. 4.4 As a subsidiary argument, the State party maintains that no infringement of the Convention, particularly articles 2 and 5, was committed since the Spanish authorities did not act negligently. The facts can be attributed only to F.R.C. Nor can one ascribe to the State negligence in the protection of integrity with regard to events prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in Spain, which cannot be considered because they are not continuing acts. 4.5 The State party approves the assessment of the Audiencia Nacional (High Court) to the effect that the judicial organ that dealt with the separation considered the circumstances and psychological reports and adopted decisions on guardianship and custody of the child and the regime of visits, choosing a gradual and very detailed regime with successive stages which the fatherdaughter contacts would go through and the number of hours and supervision to which the relationship would be subject. During the months when the regime of unsupervised visits was being applied, there were positive reports about the regime, to the extent that the possibility was envisaged of moving to a broader system of visits without perceived risks to the child. 4.6 The High Court concluded that it did not find the existence of a miscarriage of justice but rather a set of judicial decisions which, considering the concrete circumstances and consistently following the regime of visits and psychological reports on the parents and child, with involvement by the Ministerio Fiscal (Attorney General’s Office) throughout and with constant writings of allegations by the parents and follow-up reports issued by social services, reached such conclusions as they saw fit regarding the manner in which communication between a separated father and his daughter should be channelled. The murder thus did not seem connected with abnormal functioning of a court or its personnel. 2 3 14-59288 Article 292.1: Damages caused to any assets or rights through judicial error, as well as those resulting from abnormal operation of the Administration of Justice, shall grant those who have suffered damage the right to compensation from the State, except in cases of force majeure, pursuant to the terms of this Title. According to article 293.1 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary. 9