CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 in the Committee’s decision. The State party notes that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies concerning those new claims. The State party also recalls that, in its decision of 26 November 2015, the Committee explicitly limited the scope of the matter to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant in relation to the questions of custody and place of residence involving the author and her children. The State party observes that, since the author has been able to visit her children without supervision within the terms of her right to visit, the author and her children have lost their victim status and the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione personae. 9.8 Concerning article 9 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the Social Services and Healthcare Centre of Pori has given serious consideration to the author’s concerns about the safety and security of the children and has had the father’s alleged violence and infliction of bodily harm on the children investigated with due care and diligence. The Social Welfare authorities have had face-to-face meetings and discussions with the parties and have had access to extensive documentary evidence and other materials. The social workers have been in a position to formulate an independent, objective view of the father’s personality and his ability to assume responsibility for his children’s security, care and custody. The State party reiterates that the children have been under child protection measures and that the author has failed to substantiate how the measures taken by the domestic authorities have been insufficient to fulfil the requirements of article 9. 9.9 Concerning articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant, the State party considers that the decision to grant the father sole custody of his children and to order the children to live with him in Itti safeguarded the children’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, thus respecting the protection of family and private life. The State party argues that the child welfare authorities and the other authorities who have observed the children have made every effort to give due consideration to the children’s right to have contact with both parents while taking into account the rights and obligations of both parents. Protection has been granted to the children as well as the family life of the entire family, as required by the Covenant. The State party argues that the author has not been able to substantiate how the measures taken by the State party’s authorities have violated the rights to privacy and family life enshrined in articles 17 and 23, or how the measures taken to protect family life have been insufficient to fulfil the requirements of article 24. 9.10 Concerning article 14 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the present communication concerns two separate sets of judicial proceedings: the child protection measures under the Child Welfare Act; and child custody and right of access under the Act on Child Custody and Right of Access. The State party recalls that, according to the Committee’s decision of 26 November 2015, the author’s claims concerning the conformity of the legal proceedings regarding the removal of the children on 10 April 2014 without a prior, fair and public judicial hearing and the decision of Kouvola Court of Appeal of 14 March 2014 denying the request for stay of execution are unsubstantiated. 9.11 Concerning the alleged flaws on the part of Turku Administrative Court, the State party recalls that the proceedings before the Administrative Court did not concern the dispute over child custody and right of access, but only the decision of 10 April 2014 of the social welfare authority on emergency placement and restrictions on contact. The State party recalls that the author was heard, and that the safety and needs of the children were discussed with her before the emergency placement and the restrictions on contact. With regard to the author’s claim about the absence of an oral hearing, the State party refers the Committee to section 39 of the Child Welfare Act, which states that when a decision is taken about emergency placement, the hearing of opinions of the child or a parent might be waived if the delay in handling the case might cause harm to the child’s health, development or security. The State party adds that, according to the reasoning of the decision of Turku Administrative Court of 12 September 2014, no grounds existed for holding an oral hearing in the matter. The court stated that the matter concerned an emergency placement and restrictions on contact ordered for a period of one month. Considering the written evidence received in documents and the fact that the emergency placement and the restrictions on contact had already terminated, it would have been unnecessary to hear the mother and the witnesses about the circumstances of the children in an oral hearing. In its decision of 25 August 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the same reasoning. The State party notes that 11