CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 stay of execution of the District Court’s decision and an order for supervised visits of the children by their father during the proceedings. The author also objected the Court’s competence. On 14 March 2014, the Court of Appeal rejected the author’s request for interim measures. Nevertheless, at the time that the State party’s observations were submitted to the Committee, the matter was still pending before the Court of Appeal. 4.4 The Court of Appeal’s rejection of the author’s request for interim measures is a procedural interim order connected to the proceedings concerning the principal claim (the custody of the children and their residence). Such a decision, according to chapter 10, section 25 of the Enforcement Code, is not subject to a separate appeal. However, it can be appealed when appealing against the decision concerning the principal claim in the matter. A decision concerning a request for interim measures does not gain legal force nor does it have res judicata. Furthermore, a party can always submit a new request for interim measures despite a decision rejecting a previous request. In fact, the author herself submitted a new request for interim measures, which was denied by the Court of Appeal on 16 May 2014. 4.5 Pursuant to a decision taken by the Social Services on 10 April 2014, the children were placed urgently in an orphanage in accordance with sections 13 and 38 of the Child Welfare Act. Pursuant to section 90 of that Act, decisions concerning emergency placement by municipal office holders under the municipal bodies responsible for social services may be appealed to an administrative court, as provided in the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act. However, the author has failed to appeal that decision. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations and additional submissions 5.1 On 14 July 2014, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations and maintained that her communication should be regarded as admissible as to her rights as well as the children’s rights under the Covenant. 5.2 The author submitted her communication to the Committee on 11 April 2014. At that time, she had custody of her children and thus was entitled to submit a communication on their behalf and to represent them before the Committee. Furthermore, as a parent, she can represent her children in any case, especially regarding claims relating to arbitrary and unlawful decisions regarding their custody, their place of residence and her access to them. In considering the admissibility of the communication regarding the children’s rights, the Committee should take into account their vulnerability and need for special protection. 5.3 The author argues that Pori Social Services failed to carry out a thorough investigation concerning the father’s violent behaviour, as requested by Kymenlaakso District Court before it took its decision on 4 December 2013. Thereafter, on 10 April 2014, the Social Services decided to place the children in an orphanage on false grounds and without any further investigation. The author claims that the Social Services’ decisions were based on false information provided by the father, which she did not have the opportunity to challenge. 5.4 The author contends that every time she has met her children since they have been living in their father’s house, they have had different kinds of injuries, such as cuts, lacerations, bruises on different parts of their bodies, and human teeth marks from bites on their backs. They told her that their “Dad hurts”. The father has not allowed her to take the children to hospital. 5.5 On 8 December 2014 and 13 and 16 March 2015, the author provided additional information to the Committee. She submits that the father only consented to her weekly, supervised visits to the children between May and December 2014. He refused to take the children to any meetings with the author between 10 December 2014 and 7 March 2015. The father did not allow the author’s close relatives to visit the children. 5.6 She reiterated that on several visits, she found that her children had injuries and that, upon the father’s request, on 5 June 2014, the Iitti Commune Child Protection Services prevented her from examining the children’s body for injuries, from taking pictures of the alleged injuries and from taking them to hospital. She claims that this decision could not be appealed. Despite that, on 20 June 2014, she informed Iitti Social Services and KaakkoisSuomi Police Department about the injuries. No measures have been taken by the authorities as a result. 5