CRC/C/83/D/48/2018 allow the use of communication technologies, established what forms of communication could take place on weekdays and on weekends, and clarified that, pending a ruling on the merits of the case, all conversations would be supervised by the children’s grandfather “to avoid any problems or inappropriate language being directed towards the children, thus ensuring their protection in accordance with their best interests”. On 11 November 2016, the Court received a special request from the author, asking for the communications with his children to be conducted in French. The Court rejected the request on the grounds that “supervision of the visits requires an understanding of the language used” and that the person responsible for such supervision did not understand French, while the author and his children all spoke Spanish. 5.9 Subsequently, in a decision dated 16 February 2017, the Court ruled on a motion for annulment submitted by the author, in which he requested that the entire proceedings be declared null and that temporary custody be taken away from the mother. The State party indicates that the Court examined and replied to each of the points put forward by the author, pointing out, in particular, that the author had gone to the Court and had been personally notified of the decision, thus eliminating the need for a letter rogatory, that the Public Prosecution Service was involved in the proceedings, and that the Court was competent to process the custody application since the mother and the children are Panamanian nationals and are living in Panama. 5.10 The State party also notes that the Office of the Circuit Prosecutor specializing in Civil and Family Matters, in its final recommendation to the Court, recommended that the children be invited to an oral hearing to determine how the exchanges they had with their father using technological means were going. On 23 May 2017, a discussion with the children in the presence of a court-appointed social worker was scheduled for 26 June 2017. During the discussion, one of the children, F.F., said that their father spoke to the children in French although he knew that their grandfather did not speak the language, that he complained about having to pay for the communications and that he had told the children that they did not have to enrol in school because they would soon return to Benin with him. In addition, T.F., another of the children, said that the exchanges were dull and unpleasant, that their father threatened and insulted the children’s family in Panama, and that afterwards she felt upset and did not feel like studying. She also added: “We ask him to calm down but he keeps shouting, and he gets like that because he does not think that we should be here in Panama, I feel safer here in Panama because he has always been a very violent man. [...] My dad hit us for the smallest of things and he hit my mum too. During our calls with my dad I get the same feeling that I had when I was in Africa.” As a result, the Court issued a warning to the author, urging him to reflect on his actions, to make sure that all communication took place in Spanish and not to let his personal interests take precedence over the safety and emotional stability of the children. 5.11 In addition, the State party explains that, in a decision dated 10 July 2017, the Court replied to the author’s requests that the children’s mother and grandfather be held in contempt of court. The State party notes that, according to the Court, the supervisor had always given advance warning whenever personal commitments or exceptional circumstances had prevented him from attending a communication session, whereas the author did not give any advance warning on the days when he missed a scheduled session. The Court rejected the requests to hold the mother and grandfather in contempt. 5.12 On 8 September 2017, the Court considered a new request for the mother of the children to be held in contempt. The Office of the Circuit Prosecutor specializing in Civil and Family Matters recommended the Court not to grant the request, and the Court, taking into account various articles of the Family Code and the Judicial Code, rejected it. 5.13 On 8 November 2017, the Superior Family Court ruled on the appeal submitted by the author against the decision of 11 November 2016 denying his request for the communications with his children to be conducted in French or Yoruba. The Court referred to the Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People in upholding the appealed decision, ruling that there were no procedural omissions that could invalidate the proceedings and that “allowing the father to communicate with his children in a language that the supervisor does not speak or understand undermines the nature of the temporary supervisory measure entrusted to that third person, in this case the maternal grandfather, who speaks only Spanish, which is aimed not at indoctrinating the children [...] but rather at preventing them from being exposed to uncomfortable situations, thus ensuring GE.20-03098 5