CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 She also claims that the father had hindered the meetings between her and her children at her home between 8 and 11 and 15 and 18 (or 14 and 16) May 2014. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that by granting the custody of the children to the father, removing them from her house to live in an orphanage and then in their father’s house, and restricting her access to them, the State party violated her and her children’s rights under articles 7, 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author claims that the forcible separation of her children from her on 10 April 2014 caused them irreparable harm, which amounts to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The authorities arbitrarily severed her relationship with her children and restricted their right to see their mother to only once a week. In reaching that decision, the authorities did not take into account the children’s preferences, their very young age or their status as victims and witnesses of continuous acts of domestic violence inflicted by their father. The author refers to the medical report dated 19 November 2013, and argues that the decision of the Pori Social Services had a negative impact on her children’s stable development. If that measure is not reversed, it will have severe long-term, irreversible negative effects on their development and mental health. 3.3 The author claims that by allowing the father to visit the children with no supervision, the authorities put them at a serious risk of psychological and physical abuse by him, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant. Children are especially vulnerable and in need of special protection by the authorities to guarantee their right to security of person. 3.4 The author submits that her rights under article 14 have been violated as a result of: (a) the removal of the children on 10 April 2014 by the Social Services, without any written decision and without a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in which she could defend her and the children’s rights; and (b) the refusal of her request for interim measures by Kouvola Court of Appeal, without providing adequate reasoning and without taking into account her allegations and documentary evidence about the father’s acts of violence and threats against her. 3.5 The author claims that the forcible removal of the children violated their right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with their family life and their home, under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant. There were no grounds for removing the children from their habitual residence, where they had lived and been taken care of for almost two years. Furthermore, granting their custody to their father, with whom they were to live as of 1 May 2014, also violates their right to family life. 3.6 With regard to article 24 of the Covenant, the author claims that the Finnish authorities did not protect her children in accordance with the requirements of their status as very young minors. The authorities failed to duly consider the children’s relationship with the author and the violent behaviour of their father. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By note verbale of 25 June 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and requested the Committee to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. 4.2 The State party points out that, according to the District Court’s decision of 4 December 2013, the children were placed in the sole custody of their father as of 1 May 2014. Consequently, the author can no longer represent the children before the Committee. Therefore, the Committee should declare the communication inadmissible in so far as it raises claims on behalf of the children, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 95 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.3 The communication should also be declared inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, since the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party notes that according to section 43 of the Act on Child Custody and Rights of Access, the decision of the District Court of 4 December 2013 may be enforced immediately. However, the author appealed that decision before the Court of Appeal and also requested, as interim measures, a 4