CRC/C/83/D/48/2018 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama transferred the request for international judicial assistance in respect of the children’s repatriation to the Office of the Senior Prosecutor for International Affairs of the Attorney General’s Office and the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice in order to decide on the feasibility of the request. The State party notes that the Ministry replied to the authorities of Benin, indicating that it would not be possible to accede to their requests for various reasons. In this regard, in addition to pointing out that Benin is not a party to the Hague Convention and has not concluded a bilateral agreement with Panama to combat the illicit transfer of children, the Ministry indicates that no sovereign power has jurisdiction over another sovereign power, for which reason a Beninese judgment cannot be enforced in Panama without proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment having been undertaken before the Fourth Chamber (General Division) of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama, in accordance with articles 100 and 1420 of the State party’s Judicial Code. Thus, to request the enforcement of a foreign judgment, simply providing a copy of the judgment is not sufficient; an enforcement order must first have been sought. 5.3 The State party specifies that the author’s request to initiate proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment before the Ministry was rejected because the competent body for such proceedings is the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court. 5.4 In this regard, the State party indicates that on 4 May 2016 the Panamanian consulate in Paris submitted a request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama for international judicial assistance in the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, which was transmitted to the Supreme Court of Justice on 13 June 2016. On 21 January 2018, the Fourth Chamber declared the judgment of the Beninese court non-enforceable because Panamanian law prohibits the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments passed by default or in absentia. 5.5 On 3 May 2018, the author submitted through the diplomatic channel a further application for the repatriation of the three children. On 10 May 2018, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama requested an authenticated copy of the judgment of 21 January 2018 rejecting the enforcement of the foreign judgment from the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice, which it sent to the author on 4 June 2018. 5.6 With regard to the proceedings relating to offences against the family and marital status, specifically domestic violence and child abuse, the State party notes that the court hearing the case made reference to the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women and initially indicated that “the facts of the criminal case having been established, there is an urgent need to apply protection measures in response to the assaults that led the victim of the offence to make the complaint in order to guarantee her peace of mind and security”. Subsequently, however, the proceedings were brought to a close by a definitive decision to stay proceedings issued on 8 June 2017 by the Eleventh Circuit Criminal Court of the first judicial circuit of Panama, owing to the existence of grounds that made it impossible to pursue the criminal prosecution. The State party therefore rejects the author’s claim that the Public Prosecution Service colluded with the mother of the children. 5.7 With regard to the application relating to custody, upbringing and visitation rights lodged by the mother of the children before the Second Family Court of the first judicial circuit of Panama, in which she sought a ruling preventing the children from leaving the country, the State party notes that the Court, after admitting the proceedings, ordered that a court-appointed social worker should visit the mother’s place of residence and that the author in Benin should be notified. The Court indicated that “since the request to prevent the minors from leaving the country is a measure that seeks to protect the children’s best interests”, it would accede to it, in accordance with article 766 of the Family Code. It thus assigned temporary custody of the children and responsibility for their upbringing to the mother, ordered that they be prevented from leaving the country, decided not to establish visits between the author and the children, and deferred ruling on the author’s request for permission to communicate with his children on an ongoing basis until further evidence became available. 5.8 The State party specifies that the author asked that he be allowed to communicate directly, in person and on an ongoing basis with the children by technological means. On 29 August 2016, in accordance with the best interests of the children, the Court decided to 4 GE.20-03098