CRC/C/83/D/48/2018 their comprehensive protection”. The Court also noted that the use of communication through electronic means was an exception to the rule in terms of the visitation regime, since ideally parents should engage with their children face-to-face in order to renew the emotional ties broken by paternal separation. However, since the author is not in Panama, the aim is also to “facilitate some sort of communication between the father and the children”. Thus, the Superior Court followed the recommendation made by the seventh senior prosecutor for the first judicial district at civil hearing No. 159-17, held on 18 October 2017, to the effect that the appealed decision should be upheld. 5.14 On 8 March 2018, the Superior Court heard an appeal against the decision of 10 July 2017 denying the author’s request for the penalty for contempt to be applied. In reviewing the first instance decision, the Superior Court found that the appellant was in the wrong, since he had already offered evidence in relation to his motion regarding non-compliance with the visitation regime and had failed to substantiate his claims. The Court found that the author’s arguments did not directly concern the issue of whether or not contempt could be proven, instead focusing on the “illicit removal and non-return of the children” and the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear proceedings relating to the custody and upbringing of the children. The Superior Court also noted that the author sometimes failed to call the children at the scheduled times, leaving them waiting for his call, and that his conversations with them, rather than being pleasant, were in fact disagreeable, which is at odds with their best interests. 5.15 On 3 April 2018, the Third Family Court of the first judicial circuit of Panama ruled on a motion submitted by the father, requesting that the judge in the case be removed on the grounds that she had studied at the same school and at the same university as the mother of the children and therefore had personal ties with her. According to the Court, “it is untenable to remove a judge on the grounds that one of the parties to the case had studied at the same primary, secondary or higher education establishment as the judge hearing the case, since such a circumstance does not point to either friendship or enmity, it being possible that these people have never even met; the Court therefore concludes that the request is unfounded given the facts described”. The Court also considered the author’s other allegations to be unfounded. 5.16 On 20 July 2018, in response to further allegations brought by the author in the context of the proceedings concerning custody, upbringing and visitation rights, the Court reiterated that it has jurisdiction given that the mother and the three children have Panamanian nationality and are currently residing in Panama. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the competent authority to process requests for international return is a juvenile court, for which reason it declared the application for the international return of the children inadmissible. 5.17 The State party indicates that the proceedings concerning custody, upbringing and visitation rights, in the context of which the courts are required to rule on various proceedings and appeals brought by the author, are currently at the evidence-gathering stage. The State party argues that the proceedings are being conducted thoroughly and conscientiously in accordance with the applicable procedures and formalities and without bias towards either party and in the best interests of the children. The State party therefore rejects the author’s claims that the children are the victims of violations of the Convention, intimidation, threats and deceit. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 28 August 2019, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations, in which he reiterates that his children are the victims of a crime against humanity because they have not been able to speak in their native language during their conversations with him, and that they are the victims of an international abduction in which corrupt officials of the State party are complicit. In this regard, the author claims that his accusation of corruption was declared admissible on 27 March 2019, when the Attorney General of Panama requested the opening of criminal investigations. 1 1 6 According to the documents attached to the communication, on 27 May 2019 the Public Prosecution Service declined to deal with the complaint, since the claims made against various officials fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Office of the Government Prosecutor, and transferred it to the GE.20-03098