CRC/C/83/D/48/2018 6.2 With regard to the fact that the children have not consented to his submitting the communication in their names, the author claims that, as their father, he has the right to act before the Committee. 6.3 The author also maintains that the competent courts are the juvenile courts. In this regard, on 8 November 2017, he brought proceedings before the First Juvenile Court of the first judicial circuit of Panama to secure the international return of his children. However, the Court declared itself incompetent owing to the fact that proceedings relating to custody, upbringing and visitation rights had already been initiated. 6.4 The author reiterates his request that interim measures be introduced allowing him to communicate with his children through electronic means on a weekly basis from the Juvenile Court in their native language. In addition, the author reiterates his claim for compensation in the amount of $1,850,000. Additional information submitted by the author 7.1 On 9 September 2019, the author submitted additional information. He claims to have requested consular protection from the Permanent Mission of Benin to the Office of the United Nations at Geneva, in order that the latter might seek a friendly settlement before the Committee on his and his children’s behalf. 2 He therefore requests the Committee to proceed with the friendly settlement procedure (para. 1.4 above). 7.2 On 4 November 2019, the author transmitted to the Committee a statement made by an Italian journalist to the Ombudsman’s Office in Panama City in which he affirmed that “the three abducted children have been unable to return to their home country owing to a series of tricks and appalling illegal acts”. The author reiterated his request that interim measures be introduced allowing him to communicate through electronic means with his children on a weekly basis in their native language (para. 1.5 above). 7.3 On 8 November 2019, the author reported to the Committee that although the name of the person who drafted and authorized the transmission of the State party’s report to the Committee does not appear therein, the person in question is an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who thus encroached on the duties of the National Secretariat for Children, Adolescents and the Family. Therefore, according to the author, the present communication is being handled by the authorities of the State party outside any legal framework. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, whether the communication is admissible. 8.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since the proceedings relating to custody, upbringing and visitation rights, in the context of which the courts are required to resolve various proceedings and appeals brought by the author, are currently at the evidence-gathering stage. It also notes that, according to the State party, the proceedings are being conducted thoroughly and conscientiously in accordance with the applicable procedures and in the best interests of the children. The Committee notes that the author has not submitted comments related to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Committee recalls that for the purposes of determining the effectiveness of domestic remedies, their duration is assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case, including the author’s procedural activity, which may entail a delay in the resolution of the procedure by hindering or delaying the processing of the case. 3 In this regard, the Committee notes that in 2 3 GE.20-03098 Attorney General’s Office. On 22 July 2019, the Attorney General’s Office requested the Court to provide a copy of the case file in the context of an investigation into an alleged offence against the public administration. The Committee has received no communication in this regard from the Permanent Mission. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 29 January 1997, para. 79, and Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, 7