CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 amounted to a denial of justice.8 The Committee notes that the author has not substantiated how and on what aspect the oral hearing at the time of the administrative proceeding would have had an impact on child custody and place of residence, given that those issues had already been decided by Kymenlaakso District Court and the Eastern Finland Court of Appeal, and more importantly, that the emergency placement decision by the child welfare services was the execution of the decision of Kymenlaakso District Court. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claims under articles 17, 23 and 24 and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.8 The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claims concerning the alleged flaws of the Administrative Court with regard to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.9 The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 8 A.W.K. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/112/D/1998/2010), para. 9.3; Simms v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/53/D/541/1993), para. 6.2; Fernández Murcia v. Spain (CCPR/C/92/D/1528/2006), para. 4.3; and Allakulov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/120/D/2430/2014), para. 6.3. 15