CRC/C/83/D/48/2018
2.10 On 30 December 2015, the mother also filed for custody, upbringing and visitation
rights before the Second Family Court of the first judicial circuit of Panama. The Court
admitted the proceedings on 11 January 2016.
2.11 On 18 January 2016, the Court ordered temporary protection measures prohibiting
the father from contacting the children in person, by telephone or by any electronic means.
On 13 June 2016, the Court awarded temporary custody of the children to the mother.
2.12 On 10 September 2016, the Court finally allowed the author to communicate with
his children, albeit under the supervision of their maternal grandfather. However, on 11
November 2016, the Court prohibited the children from using French or Yoruba (their
native languages) in all such communications. On 8 November 2017, ruling on an appeal
submitted by the author, the Superior Family Court upheld the measure prohibiting the
children from using their native languages in all telephone conversations with their father.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his children are the victims of violations of their rights under
articles 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 35 and 37 of the Convention, as a result of the intimidation,
threats and deceit used against them by officials of the State party with a view to securing
their consent to staying in Panama.
3.2
In particular, the author claims that the Court should not have agreed to hear custody
proceedings brought by a parent who does not reside in Panama, since it did not have the
territorial jurisdiction to do so, but it should have taken measures to put an end to the
abduction of the children by their mother.
3.3
The author claims that, by concealing an international parental abduction, the Court
has committed an extremely grave act and has become complicit in the unlawful nonrepatriation of the children through acts of corruption. In this regard, the author notes that
he has filed a complaint with the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office of the Panamanian
Attorney General’s Office.
3.4
The author also claims that the fact that the State party has prohibited the children
from using their native language is a crime against humanity because it is an attempt to
erase their identity. He requests that the Committee contact the Attorney General’s Office
in the State party to facilitate the repatriation of his children.
Additional information submitted by the author
4.1
On 11, 14 and 25 March, 16 April and 9 July 2019, the author alleged that, in a
hearing held on 4 September 2018, the authorities of the State party pressured his children
into signing a document that is prejudicial towards him, and that this gave rise to the
adoption of new protection measures on 18 September 2018 restricting his communications
with his children to one hour every Saturday.
4.2
The author explained that he has submitted further repatriation requests to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the President of Panama.
4.3
The author also explained that on 27 February 2019, the Permanent Mission of
Benin to the United Nations Office at Geneva contacted the Permanent Mission of Panama
to the United Nations Office at Geneva to request that the State party submit its
observations on the communication submitted by the author to the Committee.
4.4
The author is seeking compensation of US$ 1,800,000 for himself and for his
children for the harm they have suffered.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
On 16 August 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the communication, in which it argues that the communication is inadmissible
under article 5 of the Optional Protocol since the author has not provided evidence that the
children have consented to his submitting the communication on their behalf and since he
has neither justified nor explained his acting without such consent.
5.2
With regard to the diplomatic steps taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Cooperation of Benin and the Beninese Embassy in Cuba, the State party indicates that the
GE.20-03098
3