CRC/C/83/D/48/2018 the present case, in November 2016, the Court ruled on the author’s request for communications with his children to be conducted in French; that on 16 February 2017, the Court ruled on a motion for annulment submitted by the author; that on 10 July 2017, the Court ruled on the author’s requests that the children’s mother and grandfather be held in contempt of court; that on 8 September 2017, the Court heard a new request for the mother of the children to be held in contempt; that on 8 November 2017, the Superior Court ruled on the appeal submitted by the author against the decision denying his request for communications to be conducted in French; that on 8 March 2018, the Superior Court heard an appeal against the decision rejecting the request for the penalty for contempt to be applied; that on 3 April 2018, a court ruled on a motion to remove the judge in the case; that on 20 July 2018, the Court had to rule on further proceedings brought by the author; and that on 18 September 2018, the Court had to modify the system of protection measures in place in order to restrict the communications to one hour every Saturday owing to the author’s behaviour during the conversations with his children. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the settlement of domestic remedies has not been unduly delayed. 8.3 In addition, the Committee notes that the author has not substantiated his claims regarding alleged violations of the rights contained in articles 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 35 and 37 of the Convention, for which reason it declares the communication inadmissible on account of its being manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee declares the present communication inadmissible under article 7 (e) and (f) of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee on the Rights of the Child decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 7 (e) and (f) of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the author of the communication and, for information, to the State party. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 20 November 2014, para. 195; European Court of Human Rights, Ruíz Mateos v. Spain, Judgment of 23 June 1993, paras. 38 et seq. 8 GE.20-03098