CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 5.7 The author alleges that on 3 November 2014, she received a telephone call from the social worker in charge of the children who told her that the police and the Child Protection Emergency Services had made a report concerning a violent assault at the father’s home on 26 October 2014. She claims that the social worker refused to give her more detailed information about her children. 5.8 The author refers to instances of the father’s violent behaviour towards other persons that took place between 2001 and 2005. She claims that the authorities that decided on custody of the children and their place of residence should have known about those events and taken them into consideration in their assessment. 5.9 The author claims that as a result of this situation, she suffers from insomnia, stress and sorrow. She has been on sick leave on various occasions and received a partial disability allowance. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 12 March 2015, the State party provided additional observations on the admissibility of the communication. It maintains that the author’s comments on admissibility and her additional submissions do not contain any argument justifying the admissibility of the communication. It also maintains that the references to the background of the case and the personal characteristics of the father concern the merits of the communication and cannot be examined in the context of admissibility. 6.2 As for the requirement under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the State party informs the Committee that the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 12 June 2014. It decided to partially amend the District Court’s decision of 4 December 2013 and granted the author supervised visits to the children. The author filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 12 September 2014, the Supreme Court rejected the author’s application. The State party, however, states that “it does not appear if the [author’s] request concerned the whole decision of the Court of Appeal in its entirety or only parts of it. Thus, it cannot be verified if all the available domestic remedies have been exhausted in this respect.” 6.3 The State party also informs the Committee that the author appealed to the Administrative Court against the Social Services’ four separate decisions of 10 April 2014 concerning the placement of the children and the restrictions on communication between the author and her children. On 12 September 2014, the Administrative Court rejected the author’s appeals. Subsequently, the author appealed that decision before the Supreme Administrative Court and, at the time that the State party’s observations were submitted to the Committee, the appeal was still pending. The State party notes, however, that the decisions concerning the placement of the children cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court. 6.4 The State party acknowledges that a person who is not entitled under domestic law to represent another person may nevertheless, in certain circumstances, act in a procedure of international investigation or settlement on behalf of the other person. In general, a natural mother can act in such procedures on her children’s behalf in order to protect their interest. However, at the same time, careful examination is needed to ascertain whether the communication is submitted truly in the best interest of the children in order, for example, to prevent manipulation of the children. In certain cases, there may also be a conflict of interest between a person and the persons represented. The State party refers to article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, and maintains that since the children were placed under the sole custody of the father as of 1 May 2014, the author can no longer represent the children before the Committee, and can pursue the communication on her own behalf only. Author’s further submission 7.1 On 24 April 2015, the author submitted further comments in reply to the State party’s observations of 12 March 2015. 7.2 The author refers to article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and submits that she has been deprived of almost all of her 6