CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 questions of custody and place of residence involving the author and her minor children in relation to the claims under articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. 1 1.4 On 10 April, 2 May and 17 May 2014, 29 September 2015, and 12 May and 9 August 2016, the author requested the Committee to institute interim measures to have the children removed from their father’s custody and placed under her custody. The Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided not to accede to her requests. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author and her former partner, A.J., had twins, M.L.J.H and E.V.S.H, in January 2012. She claims that A.J., the twins’ biological father, subjected her to continuous and serious physical and psychological violence; that the physical violence mainly took place between June 2011 and April 2012; and that in some instances, his intention was to cause her to miscarry. For some time, she was unable to leave A.J. because she did not know where to find a women’s shelter and she feared for the lives of her children and for her own life. However, on 28 April 2012, she took the children and left the apartment where they had been living. Thereafter, A.J. continued inflicting psychological violence on her. She claims that all the ordeals she went through caused her anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder and that before and after the separation from A.J., the children were also victims of psychological violence, since they regularly witnessed their father’s violence towards her. At a certain point, judicial proceedings were instituted concerning child custody, their place of residence and visitation rights. 2.2 On 17 July 2012, the author reported an act of violence that A.J. had allegedly committed against her to the police, mentioning previous similar acts that had taken place in 2011 and 2012. On 31 October 2012, the police issued a report concerning the author’s allegations and on 8 January 2013, the case was transmitted to the Prosecutor. On 19 September 2013, the Prosecutor decided not to prosecute A.J. as there was insufficient evidence to press charges against him. 2.3 On 19 October 2013, A.J. started visiting the children, under supervision. The author claims that soon after the visits started, she was again the victim of physical violence perpetrated by him. 2.4 On 4 December 2013, Kymenlaakso District Court entrusted A.J. with sole custody of the children and ordered that they should live with him as of 1 May 2014. The author would have visitation rights, according to which the children would stay with her in her home every second week, from Thursday to Sunday. The Court referred to a psychologist’s statement indicating that, while the author was psychologically stable, she had alienated the children from their father during the period of shared custody and had not allowed him to see them between 1 February and 19 October 2013. Moreover, the psychologist had noted that the author’s accusations concerning A.J.’s acts of violence were untrue and that her intention was to defame him. Given that background, the District Court concluded that A.J.’s allegedly violent behaviour towards the author and the children had not occurred. The author claims that the District Court failed to duly take into account the statement produced by a child psychiatrist, which was not even mentioned in the Court’s decision, as well as the fact that in October 2013, she started therapy in relation to the trauma caused by the acts of violence she had suffered. 2.5 The author alleges that on 15 December 2013, she was in a shelter in Pori together with a shelter supervisor and the children, since a supervised visit of the father and the children had to take place there. When the father arrived, he behaved badly and attacked her, resulting in a contusion on her right shoulder. Afterwards, she reported the event to the police, and saw a doctor the next day. 2.6 On 17 January 2014, the author submitted an appeal to Kouvola Court of Appeal against the decision of the District Court of 4 December 2013. She claimed that the children should remain in her sole custody and live with her; that the father should be granted 1 2 The author’s claims under articles 2 (3) (a) and 5 were raised in her submission of 24 April 2015.