CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee on 13 March 2020 Consideration of admissibility regarding articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 12.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 12.2 In accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 12.3 The Committee notes the State party’s position that the communication is inadmissible because the same matter, involving the same facts, has been examined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and by the European Court of Human Rights, which declared the author’s application inadmissible in May 2015. The Committee notes that the matters raised before the Committee on the Rights of the Child relate to the proceedings concerning enforcement of the author’s visitation rights as of 13 September 2015, not the custody of the children or the emergency placement of 2014. The Committee therefore considers that although it is not, in principle, precluded from examining the author’s claims in relation to the questions of child custody and place of residence involving the author and her minor children, it is precluded from considering matters that have been examined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, including the enforcement of the author’s visitation rights as of September 2015. The Committee notes that the single-judge decision issued by the European Court of Human Rights does not specify the basis for the finding of inadmissibility. Therefore, in the absence of further information on the complaint before the European Court, the Committee is not in a position to determine whether there is a violation of article 5 (2) (b). 12.4 The Committee reiterates that in the present decision, it will examine only the allegations with regard to the alleged flaws of the Administrative Court in relation to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 concerning child custody and the place of residence. It will not examine any other claims made in the communication that fall outside of this scope. 12.5 With regard to article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate how her claims relating to the emergency placement of the children in an orphanage in order to enforce an order on transfer of custody establish an arbitrary deprivation of liberty or risk to security of person within the meaning of article 9 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares those claims inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that domestic remedies have been exhausted and have proven to be ineffective. The Committee notes that the author argues that the State party’s authorities lacked impartiality during the administrative proceedings and that the proceedings did not meet the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee also notes that the author recalls that there was no oral hearing within the administrative proceedings in relation to the decision on emergency placement of the children by the Pori child welfare authority on 10 April 2014. However, the Committee considers that the author does not explain how the fact that she did not have an oral hearing during the administrative proceedings, which under the standard procedure is not required in most cases, has affected her rights under article 14. The Committee notes that the State party submits that both Administrative Courts took into account all the submissions provided by the author and explained why no public hearing was conducted at the Administrative Court level. The Committee also notes that the State party considers that an oral hearing ex post facto would have been irrelevant, given that the emergency placement and the restrictions on contact had already terminated at the time of the administrative proceedings. 12.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that these allegations relate essentially to the evaluation of the facts and evidence conducted by the domestic courts and the application of domestic legislation. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is not a final instance competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were clearly arbitrary or 14