CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 rights as a parent, including of her children’s guardianship, and therefore discriminated against as a woman. 7.3 The author submits that the communication is to be considered admissible also concerning the claims made on behalf of the children, since it raises claims as to the manner in which the authorities handled their custody and place of residence, ignoring the father’s violent behaviour towards her and them. She also submits that article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure applies to different kinds of situations, where for example a parent or someone else tries to manipulate a child’s own will. In the present communication, the very young age of the children makes their manipulation impossible. 7.4 As for the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author argues that the Administrative Court’s decision of 12 September 2014 concerning the placement of the children cannot be further appealed. As to the authorities’ decision concerning the custody of the children, she points out that her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court concerns the whole decision of the Court of Appeal and that domestic remedies have proved to be ineffective since the children have now lived in a violent environment for several months. 7.5 The author claims that the proceedings of the Administrative Court violated article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Administrative Court refused to hold hearings and to interrogate the author and the witnesses offered by her, such as a child psychiatrist, a communal kindergarten teacher and a social worker from Pori Social Services who made the decision of 10 April 2014. If certain evidence is not considered relevant by a court, it is obliged to provide reasoning for that decision. Nor did the court take into account the documentary evidence submitted by her, such as medical reports concerning the best interest of the children, their mental health and development, medical records concerning the damages caused by the father’s acts of violence against the author, and police reports. 7.6 She claims that the social workers from Pori Social Services had a very negative attitude towards her every time she contacted them, starting in June 2013. Despite her complaints of continuing and serious violence and the documentation provided, the social workers failed to evaluate her allegations about the risk that the father could represent for the children. Moreover, the authorities failed to thoroughly investigate the allegations, to punish the perpetrator and to provide protection, shelter and assistance to her and the children in violation of articles 2 (3) (a), 5, 9 (1), 17, 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 7.7 The authorities’ indifference to her allegations concerning the father’s violence, notably their comments that the author “is stuck in the idea of the father being violent”, revictimizes her and constitutes a violation of articles 18 and 19 (2) of the Covenant. 7.8 The manner in which the authorities entered the house of the author’s parents on 10 April 2014 to take the children to an orphanage, without showing any decision or providing reasons, also constitutes a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee on 26 November 2015 Consideration of admissibility 8.1 The Committee ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that, as at 26 November 2015, the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has no standing to submit a communication to the Committee on behalf of her children since the District Court’s decision of 4 December 2014 placed the children in the sole custody of their father as of 1 May 2014. It also takes note of the State party’s argument that, although in general a natural mother has standing to act on her child’s behalf in order to protect his or her interest, in certain cases a communication should be declared inadmissible to prevent the manipulation of the child. The Committee further takes note of the author’s allegations that at the time that she submitted her communication to the Committee, she had custody of her children, and that her communication raises claims concerning the manner in which the authorities handled the custody and place of residence of her children and arbitrarily granted it to their father. The 7