CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 that incident, although her partner witnessed the scene. She alleges that the father prevented her from seeing the children for 11 months after that incident. 10.4 On 26 November 2016, the author submitted her comments in response to the State party’s observations of 30 June 2016. She reiterates that she has exhausted domestic remedies, although they proved to be ineffective and arbitrary, and that there have been serious flaws that have affected the outcome of the proceedings. The author recalls that she has challenged the custody, residence and visitation rights in both custody disputes. She notes that she has appealed the administrative proceedings concerning the decision of the immediate placement of the children in an orphanage on 10 April 2014 before Turku Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court and that there is no possibility of further domestic appeal or remedy. She adds that the administrative proceedings concerning the immediate placement of the children following the incident of 26 October 2014 and the lack of immediate placement following the incident of 13 September 2015 did not include a possibility for appeal. 10.5 The author reiterates that there was no oral hearing with regard to the emergency placement and restriction of contact from 10 April to 2 May 2014 before the Administrative Court or the Supreme Administrative Court. She refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it stated that placement of a child in institutional care amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 9, and that the child had a right to be heard, directly or through legal or other appropriate assistance, in relation to any decision regarding a deprivation of liberty, and that the procedures employed should be child-appropriate (para. 62). She recalls that the children have not been heard, since the State party decided that they could not be heard. The author argues that the lawfulness of the children’s deprivation of liberty was not decided by the court in proceedings that fulfil the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant. She recalls that when the children where “released” to the father’s house on 2 May 2014, the security aspects covered by article 9 were not taken into account by the State party. The author notes that the Administrative Court did not even list or state what evidence it had used for the immediate placement and thus the conclusion remains unclear. She argues that only 10 per cent of immediate placements include an oral hearing. She claims that the Administrative Court’s decisions were based mainly on the investigations of social workers, which could include allegations and personal opinions, referred to as “evidence” by the Court. In addition, she emphasizes that the “client” has the burden of proving that the social workers’ concerns were unfounded and that there was no need to interfere with the family life of the children and the parents. She requests the Committee to order the State party to improve the system to include oral hearing, specifically in cases of interference in family life. She adds that there is no evidence that proves that she would have harmed the children. 10.6 With regard to article 23, the author refers to her previous submissions and claims that any discriminatory treatment with regard to procedures for child custody and visiting rights should be prohibited, in the best interest of the child. 10.7 Concerning article 24 of the Covenant, she recalls that it is for the State party and the parents to create conditions to protect and promote the rights of the child recognized in the Covenant. 10.8 On 11 August 2018, the author reiterated the facts and complaints detailed in her previous communications. Regarding admissibility, the author notes that the communication before the Committee on the Rights of the Child concerns the enforcement of the visitation rights, not the question of child custody and places of residence. State party’s further observations 11. On 14 June 2019, the State party reiterated its position and all of its previous argumentation. 13