CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 2.18 On 23 April 2004, the author filed with the Ministry of Justice a claim for compensation for miscarriage of justice, alleging negligence by the administrative and judicial authorities. The author maintained that both the judicial organs and the social services had failed in their obligation to protect the life of her daughter, despite the many occasions when she had informed the courts and police about the danger the girl faced with her father. The author claimed the right to receive compensation as the only viable form of redress. 2.19 On 3 November 2005, the Ministry of Justice denied the claim, taking the view that the judicial organ had acted properly regarding the regime of visits; and that the author’s disagreement fell within the category of a judicial dispute and had to be processed accordingly. The claim for compensation could only go forward once a judicial error had been found by the Supreme Court. To take that decision the Ministry held consultations with the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (General Council of the Judiciary) and the Consejo de Estado (Council of State), and the author was heard. On 15 December 2005, the author submitted an administrative appeal with the Ministry of Justice which was denied on 22 January 2007 for the same reason. 2.20 On 14 June 2007 the author lodged an administrative appeal before the Audiencia Nacional (High Court) alleging improper functioning of the administration of justice, not only through the action of the courts which granted the regime of unsupervised visits, but through the functioning of the social services and the Ministerio Fiscal (Attorney General’s Office) in eliminating the regime of supervised visits. The appeal was denied on 10 December 2008. On 27 February 2009, the author filed an appeal in cassation with the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), which denied the appeal on 15 October 2010. 2.21 On 30 November 2010 the author appealed in amparo before the Constitutional Court, alleging violation of her constitutional rights to an effective remedy, to security, to life and physical and moral integrity, not be subjected to torture or cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, and to equality before the law. On 13 April 2011 the Court denied the appeal as lacking constitutional relevance. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that the facts described constitute a violation of articles 2, 5 and 16 of the Convention. 3.2 The actions of the police and the administrative and judicial authorities constitute a violation of her right not to suffer discrimination, protected by article 2 (a-f). This violation occurred on two levels. Firstly, the State failed to act with due diligence, with all means available to it and without delay to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish the violence against the author and her daughter by F.R.C. and which culminated in the daughter’s murder. Secondly, after the child’s death the State party did not provide an effective judicial response or appropriate redress to the author for the damages suffered through the negligence of the State. 3.3 The State party violated article 2 (e) of the Convention because it did not protect the author and her daughter as victims of domestic violence. The author repeatedly informed authorities of the violence they had been suffering and of her fears for their lives and physical and mental integrity. Despite more than 30 appeals for protection and complaints filed with authorities and courts, mother and daughter continued to be the object of verbal, physical and psychological assaults. On many occasions, the author requested mediation from social 6 14-59288