CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 8.6 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims under articles 18 and 19 (2) of the Covenant. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that these claims are not sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility, and finds them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that the facts she describes amount to violations of her and her children’s rights under articles 2 (3) (a), 7, 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. The Committee notes in this regard that all of the author’s claims were raised before the national courts of the State party and that it is generally for the national courts, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case unless it is apparent that the courts’ decisions are manifestly arbitrary or amount to a denial of justice. 6 The Committee also notes, however, that the author has made several claims regarding the conformity of legal proceedings in Finland with the Covenant, which may affect the degree to which the Committee should defer to national courts in evaluating the facts and evidence, including that: (a) that the removal of the children on 10 April 2014 by Social Services was done without a prior, fair and public judicial hearing; (b) that the decision of Kouvola Court of Appeal of 14 March 2014, which denied the request for stay of execution, failed to provide adequate reasoning showing that it had taken into consideration the allegations and evidence of the father’s alleged violent behaviour; and (c) that the Administrative Court refused to hold hearings and to interrogate the author and the witnesses provided by her, without giving reasoning for its decision and without considering the documentary evidence she submitted. The Committee has not received from the author any other information that would allow it to qualify the decisions of the national courts as manifestly arbitrary or amounting to a denial of justice. 8.8 The Committee considers the author’s claim regarding the execution of the removal order to be unsubstantiated, since the removal was an emergency measure designed to implement the 4 December 2013 decision of Kymenlaakso District Court following legal proceedings in which the author participated, and the regularity of which she did not challenge. By their very nature, such emergency measures can often be open to challenge only ex post facto, and the author has indeed challenged the measures in subsequent court proceedings. The Committee also finds the author’s claim about the failure of Kouvola Court of Appeal to provide reasoning to be unsubstantiated, since the author did not explain how the lack of reasoning of a decision concerning the stay of execution of a prior judicial decision, whose conformity with article 14 was not challenged by the author, affected her right to a fair hearing. 8.9 The Committee notes, however, that the State party has not contested in its submissions on the admissibility of the communication the author’s claims concerning the flaws in the proceedings before the Administrative Court. As a result, this aspect of the communication, which may also affect the Committee’s assessment of the factual issues underlying the author’s claims pursuant to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant, cannot be deemed, at this point in time, to be inadmissible. 8.10 Accordingly, on 26 November 2015, the Committee decided to join the proceedings on admissibility and the merits insofar as the communication raised issues with respect 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 minor children. It requested the State party to provide, within six months of the date of transmittal to it of that decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter, and indicating the measures, if any, that had been taken by the State. State party’s observations on admissibility in relation to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 and further submissions 9.1 By note verbal of 30 June 2016, the State party submitted its observations in relation to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24. The State party reiterated its comments of 25 June 2014 and 12 March 2015, emphasizing that the whole communication should be inadmissible. 6 Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 5.5. 9