CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 Author’s comments on the State party’s submission concerning admissibility 5.1 On 11 March 2013, the author made comments on the observations of the State party, indicating that she had litigated in the domestic courts in order to show that there was a miscarriage of justice and not merely a judicial error. Her litigation strategy was in keeping with the concept of miscarriage of justice contained in the Organic Law on the Judiciary, which characterized it as “any defect in the operation of the courts or tribunals, conceived of as an organic complex comprising various persons, services, means and activities”. 4 The various authorities had acted in a negligent and uncoordinated manner, including the psychosocial personnel related to the courts and social services. Accordingly, it was decided to litigate in order to show the malfunctioning of the administration of justice. 5.2 The State party alleges that the author should have used the procedure for pecuniary liability for judicial error. However, it does not provide information on the effectiveness of the procedures, for example through statistical data or examples of similar cases in which victims have obtained redress through this means. In the final analysis, the State party has not shown that this remedy would have been more effective than the one used. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument relating to lack of substantiation, the author maintains that it should be rejected in the framework of admissibility, since the considerations expressed by the State in that regard pertain to the substance of the case. The author further expresses disagreement with those considerations and believes that the version of events presented by the State party is distorted. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s contention that the acts involved are not continuing acts, the author points out that the violence endured by her and her daughter was continuous and culminated in the child’s death, which occurred after the entry into force of the Protocol. The violence persists down to the present, in that she has not received compensation of any kind. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 14 May 2013, the State party submitted observations on the merits of the communication. The State party asserts that, before the domestic courts, the author submitted a pecuniary liability claim in the amount of 1 million euros for miscarriage of justice in regard to the visiting regime that had been authorized. The author did not allege a violation of the Convention. Her claim did not include issues relating to miscarriage of justice in relation to herself. Therefore, the reply of the administrative authority was only to that petition and it is to that issue that the complaint before the Committee should be confined, since otherwise domestic remedies would not have been exhausted. 6.2 In reference to the visit scheme, the authorities conducted continuous monitoring of father-daughter relations and subjected the daughter and the parents to an exhaustive psychological evaluation on 24 September 2001. The resulting report indicated that “the father was observed to have an obsessivecompulsive disorder with aspects of pathological jealousy and a tendency to distort reality” which affected his relationship with his wife. However, in his conclusions, the psychologist did not find “warning signs or risks to the child in the interaction” with her father. The report recommended a gradual rapprochement between the child and her father. 4 10 See para. 2.18, supra. 14-59288