CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 supervised visits twice a month; and that those measures were necessary to guarantee her and her children’s safety and well-being. In addition, she requested a stay of execution of the District Court’s decision until the case was examined by the Court of Appeal. 2.7 On 14 March 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed her request for a stay of execution and stated that there were no grounds for suspending or revoking the District Court’s decision. The author claims that the Court did not provide adequate reasoning for denying her request or address her accusations that the children’s father had been violent towards her and had threatened her. She also claims that the Court failed to take into account the medical reports dated 19 November 2013 and 3 January 2014, issued by two psychiatrists, which stated it was not recommendable to change the custody of the children to the other parent, since a radical change or a separation of the children from their mother for a long period of time would negatively affect their development; that the author had post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the continuous violence inflicted by the father; and that she had a stable personality and did not have any mental illness affecting her parenting ability. 2.8 On 1 April 2014, Kouvola Court of Appeal was merged into Itä-Soumi Court of Appeal, which subsequently dealt with the author’s case. 2.9 On 10 April 2014, Pori Social Services put the children under emergency placement. It removed them from the author’s custody without prior notice and placed them in the orphanage in Kalevanpuisto, in Pori. The author claims that the children strongly opposed the removal and that she was not allowed to visit them that day. She also claims that the Social Services informed her orally that the reason for removing her children was a suspicion that she would try to hinder the transfer of custody on 1 May 2014, since she had not allowed the father’s visits during the weekends and objected to the transfer of custody to him. The author was allowed to see the children only once a week. She appealed the Social Services’ decisions before Turku Administrative Court. On 16 April 2014, the Administrative Court rejected her appeal. 2.10 The author applied to Itä-Soumi Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the District Court’s decision of 4 December 2013. On 24 April 2014, the Court of Appeal denied the author’s request. It referred to the decision of Kouvola Court of Appeal of 14 March 2014, which stated that the best interest of the children did not require the suspension of the enforcement of the District Court’s decision. It recalled that on 10 April 2014, the children had been placed in the orphanage on the grounds that the authorities considered that the author’s behaviour might be detrimental to their well-being. 2.11 When the author’s communication was submitted to the Committee, she argued that although the oral hearings regarding the appeal of the custody would take place only in summer or autumn 2014, she had exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies as there was no appeal against the decision of Kouvola Court of Appeal concerning her request for interim measures. 2.12 On 2 May 2014, the author was informed by the Social Services that the children had left the orphanage and that custody had been granted to their father, who had taken them to his house in Iitti, Haapa-Kimola. The author claims that his house is 300 km away from their previous home and that it is in a remote rural area, with no neighbours or public services within a 7 km range. The children would have no help if they were victims of violence perpetrated by their father. 2.13 On 16 May 2014, the author submitted a request for interim measures to Itä-Soumi Court of Appeal, and asked it to transfer the children’s residence to her house. She claimed that they had already been separated from her for 35 days; that the separation had had traumatic consequences for them; and that it was in their best interest to live with her. During the hearing, the author provided the statement of a child psychiatrist who had found that the enforcement of the Social Services’ and District Court’s decisions had already severely traumatized the children and had caused serious harm to their mental health. On the same day, the Court of Appeal denied the author’s request, but decided that the children had the right to see their mother two hours a week, under supervision. The author claims that this decision runs contrary to the State party’s law, since the District Court had already granted her broader visitation rights (see para. 2.4 above) and the father had not opposed that decision. 3