CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 Turku Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court provided reasoning concerning oral hearing. The State party finds that Turku Administrative Court reasoned in length the necessity of the emergency, taking into account the issues raised by the author in her submissions. Similarly, in its decision of 25 August 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court took into account all the submissions submitted to the Court, including those concerning the incident that took place on 26 October in the father’s home. The State party argues that emergency placement cannot be used for an inappropriate purpose, as a means of resolving a custody dispute, as indicated by Turku Administrative Court. The State party concludes that the author has not been able to substantiate her claims concerning the flaws in the proceedings and holds that the proceedings before the administrative courts complied with article 14 of the Covenant. 9.12 On 4 May 2018, the State party submitted further information indicating that the author has made many allegations that are irrelevant and cannot be verified. The State party added that on 17 November 2017, the author and the children’s father entered into an agreement concerning enforcement of the author’s visitation rights, which is at the core of the present communication. At the request of the parties, the agreement was confirmed by the Eastern Finland Court of Appeal on 20 November 2017. The decision was not appealed and has become final. The State party also argued that it is not for the Committee to act as a fourth instance to domestic courts and insisted that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Author’s observations on admissibility in relation to articles 9, 14, 17, 23 and 24 and further submissions 10.1 On 29 September 2015, the author submitted further information. On 12 September 2015, when she was in charge of the children for the weekend, she noticed that M.L.J.H. had a bruise on his cheek. When she asked him what had caused the bruise, he said that his father had hit him. The author went to hospital and the doctor reported the suspected assault to the police, recommending an emergency placement as of 13 September 2015, which is the day when the children were supposed to return to their father’s care. The author returned to hospital with the children on 13 September 2015, after her other child, E.V.S.H., told her that he had also been injured on his bottom and his back by his father. The children were heard by Pori Social Services without the presence of the author. Pori Social Services had called the father prior to the medical examination of E.V.S.H. and told the author to return the children to the father, in spite of the author’s requests for investigation and the children’s refusal to go back to their father. The author indicates that there was no written decision, in spite of her demands, and that she was therefore not able to appeal that decision. The author alleges that the actions of Pori Social Services on 13 September 2015 were in violation of articles 2, 5, 7, 9 and 24 of the Covenant. 10.2 On 9 August 2016, the author submitted further information. She argues that during the investigation that led to the ruling of Kymenlaakso District Court on 4 December 2013, the State party’s authorities lacked impartiality. She explains that only the report of the father’s lawyer was taken into account and that her lawyer was not contacted until 10 April 2014. She explains that she had agreed with her lawyer that she would not take part in the investigation, in good faith, which is why her lawyer did not submit a report. She also argues that she had requested several times that the State party grant her access to the father’s potential criminal record. Despite the lack of response from the State party, she managed to obtain it through her own searches with the police. The author claims that the background information on the violent behaviour of the father was not taken into account either by Kymenlaakso District Court in its decision on child custody of 4 December 2013 or in the Eastern Finland Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 June 2014. 10.3 The author also refers to an incident that took place on 26 October 2014, when two alleged strangers attacked the father at his home, in the children’s presence. She points out that there are contradictions in his testimonies. The author claims that the father actually knew the two men, which demonstrates that the children are not safe with him. The author also refers to the incident of 13 September 2015 and adds that when she returned the children to their father’s house that day, he assaulted her. She has not submitted a complaint about 12