ÿWPC¹ óÏ©ëðÞ*„¾>:0O”‰4ÿš¼oÁÒ˜[¼|.o—…â·¹ÔjÖ|ÓñŽóÿžÖµ(Hbâ÷ù–Jb¶0o$«pf÷™ùmªß‚%1Â+µ¢%zÑooØÚ”}’·jV,Pe|Á‡íí"¥ ϶p¯67ãÓ•Zï²*­«é}Ÿ˜j+—Îá³ ®\¥t;fÍ¿6lòº³ÄIú†Å|†ÊWf`‹w;ˆˆ²ºˆq1°XmÙÐÛݶÃ;³U+÷=fuW¤…aÂÌ6¿³%=¯(A›üæÃp…õ6»ë)$S@Åø—Z÷OU¦þ¡¤øŸ¡øm5¡wÔ'¸€œåMÃcLpÐ &F¹~úµBÏï~Ðýgá–‚ëÏ #S´'ô¹t 6#oQ©„˜ r Fáv~Wz°5ÉœˆOHüP¦´‘%Ôï1ƒúW¹Lr«Ÿa¯!„tZ¶ukH0•À»°^bÇÃÖâ€ÜêZ[G–~Œ‡­¹(Ô– ¬:³4yÍ^˜:h/(T­xÜøÃM:Ÿø¸üLþ8DcæLˆ¯ì½ÇHrc Øœº:qú 60y;‘w8`d²ûãÎ‘Š·ÃHaÕ¿\pfáÛ°u÷­ÖõÁQùga T¤V^U>²Ìð 0µ¼ 0<q 0Y­ 0_ 0ie %ÎÆÔ 0áš 0({ D+£ AMÎ Î Î Î  0N+ 0Æy #Á? UNMN(RNz^ |wˆ4Œ  m¢ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Balaguer Santacana v. Spain, Communication No. 417/1990, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/417/1990 (14PR/C/51/D/417/1990 (1"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓX Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2nÒ$££Ý ƒ&Ç!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X}ŽXXXÔÔ€X}ŽXXX}ŽÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ž&Ç$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X|ÖXXXÔÔ€X|ÖXXX|ÖÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular*©ú* Äpì*ê:i¢Ø+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ&Ç!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X}ŽXXXÔÔ€X}ŽXXX}ŽÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔSantacanaÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€SpainóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€417/1990*Ð H˜ ÐÌ15€July€1994Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/51/D/417/1990*Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Manuel€Balaguer€Ô_ÔSantacanaÔ_ÔÐ D”  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimsóó:€The€author€and€his€daughter,€Mara€del€Carmen€Balaguer€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_ÔÐ ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€SpainÐ Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€9€July€1990€(initial€submission)Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€25€March€1992óóÐ tÄ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ &v Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð  \ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€15€July€1994,Ð Ø( ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€417/1990€submitted€to€the€HumanÐ ¤ô ÐRights€Committee€by€Mr.€Manuel€Balaguer€Ô_ÔSantacanaÔ_Ô€on€behalf€of€himself€and€his€daughter,Ð Š Ú ÐMara€del€Carmen€Balaguer€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ p!À  ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ "$r# Ðcommunication€and€the€State€party,Ð %X $ ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€its€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óóóÐ †)Ö$) ÐÓlÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Manuel€Balaguer€Ô_ÔSantacanaÔ_Ô,€a€Spanish€citizen€bornÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€1940€and€residing€in€Barcelona,€Spain.€He€submits€the€communication€on€his€behalf€andÐ -n(- Ðon€behalf€of€his€daughter,€Mara€del€Carmen€Balaguer€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô,€born€in€1985,€claiming€thatÐ ° Ðthey€are€victims€of€violations€by€Spain€of€articles€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€and€24,€paragraphÐ –æ Ð1,€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€Optional€Protocol€enteredÐ |Ì Ðinto€force€for€Spain€on€25€April€1985.Ð b² ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó:Ð . ~ ÐÌ2.1€The€author€states€that€in€November€1983€he€and€Mara€del€Carmen€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔQuionesÔ_ÔÐ ú J Ðdecided€to€live€together.€On€15€October€1985,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô€gave€birth€to€a€girl,€who€wasÐ à 0 Ðrecognized€by€both€parents€and€registered€on€the€"Ô_ÔRegistroÔ_Ô€Civil"€of€Barcelona€under€theÐ Æ   Ðname€of€Mara€del€Carmen€Balaguer€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô.€The€author€further€states€that€after€the€birthÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€the€child,€their€relationship€deteriorated€irremediably;€on€7€October€1986€Ms.€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_ÔÐ ’â  Ðleft€the€common€household,€taking€the€child€with€her.€After€several€weeks€the€author€learnedÐ xÈ  Ðthat€she€had€moved€to€Badalona,€a€town€near€Barcelona.Ð ^®  ÐÌ2.2€On€10€November€1986,€the€author€filed€with€the€Third€Chamber€of€the€Badalona€CourtÐ *z  Ð(Ô_ÔJuzgadoÔ_Ô€Tres€de€Ô_ÔInstruccið;ðnÔ_Ô€y€Ô_ÔPrimeraÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔInstanciaÔ_Ô€de€Badalona)€case€No.€18/86€under€theÐ ` ÐÔ_ÔregimeÔ_Ô€of€"voluntary€jurisdiction"€(Ô_Ôjurisdiccið;ðnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔvoluntariaÔ_Ô),€with€a€view€to€obtaining€theÐ öF Ðrecognition€of€his€paternal€authority€(òòÔ_ÔpatriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpotestadÔ_Ôóó)€and€visiting€rights€to€his€child.€On€28Ð Ü, ÐJanuary€1987,€the€judge€decided€that€provisional€measures€should€be€taken€until€a€finalÐ Â Ðdecision€was€issued€in€the€matter.€The€author€was€authorized€to€spend€every€Saturday€orÐ ¨ø ÐSunday€from€11€a.m.€to€8€p.m.€with€his€daughter,€who€by€then€was€one€year€old.€In€FebruaryÐ ŽÞ Ð1987€he€saw€his€daughter,€believed€her€to€be€in€ill„health€and€took€her€to€a€doctor,€keepingÐ tÄ Ðher€for€four€days.€Subsequent€to€this€visit,€the€mother€refused€to€let€him€see€the€child€for€aÐ Zª Ðperiod€of€19€months€until€November€1988.Ð @ ÐÌ2.3€On€23€June€1988,€the€Badalona€Court€issued€an€enforcement€order€("òòAuto€de€Ô_ÔobligadoÔ_ÔÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔcumplimientoÔ_Ôóó")€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔMontalvoÔ_Ô,€which€she€appealed€to€the€Superior€Court€ofÐ òB ÐBarcelona€(òòTribunal€Superioróó)€while€continuing€to€deny€the€author€access€to€his€daughter.Ð Ø( ÐOne€year€later,€on€23€June€1989,€the€Superior€Court€affirmed€the€order€of€23€June€1988.Ð ¾ ÐÌ2.4€On€19€July€1989,€the€mother€started€a€contentious€action€(òòÔ_ÔDemandaÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔMenorÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔCuantaÔ_Ôóó)Ð Š Ú Ðbefore€the€Badalona€Court€(case€No.€406/89)€aimed€at€modifying€the€provisional€decisionsÐ p!À  Ðof€28€January€1987€and€23€June€1988.€On€16€March€1990,€the€Court€decided€to€suspend€theÐ V"¦! Ðproceedings€of€voluntary€jurisdiction€pending€decision€on€the€contentious€matter.€The€authorÐ <#Œ" Ðappealed€against€this€decision€on€22€March€1990.€Nearly€two€years€later,€on€31€JanuaryÐ "$r# Ð1992,€the€Superior€Court€(òòTribunal€Superioróó)€rejected€the€author's€appeal.Ð %X $ ÐÌ2.5€The€author€also€applied€to€the€"òòÔ_ÔDireccið;ðnÔ_Ô€General€de€Ô_Ôatencið;ðnÔ_Ô€a€la€Ô_ÔinfanciaÔ_Ô€de€laÐ Ô&$"& ÐÔ_ÔConselleriaÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔBenestarÔ_Ô€Social€de€la€Ô_ÔGeneralitatÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔCatalunyaÔ_Ôóó",€requesting€that€his€daughter'sÐ º' #' Ðcase€be€further€investigated€and€protective€measures€adopted.€The€department€seized€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðmatter€carried€out€a€summary€investigation€and€accepted€to€consider€it€in€more€detail.€InÐ †)Ö$) ÐApril€1990,€however,€the€same€department€informed€the€author€that€it€had€received€anÐ l*¼%* Ðexplicit€order€from€the€court€of€first€instance€to€refrain€from€further€examining€the€case,Ð R+¢&+ Ðsince€the€court€considered€that€it€alone€was€competent.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐÔ_Ô2.6€The€author€emphasizes€the€urgency€of€the€matter€since€these€are€his€daughter's€formativeÐ ° Ðyears.€He€claims€that€irreparable€harm€is€being€done€to€her€by€depriving€her€of€theÐ –æ Ðopportunity€of€having€contact€with€her€father.€In€this€connection€he€refers€to€pertinentÐ |Ì Ðpsychological€and€sociological€studies€that€conclude€that€the€separation€of€a€child€from€anyÐ b² Ðone€parent€may€have€serious€psychological€consequences.€He€finally€invokes€the€ConventionÐ H˜ Ðon€the€Rights€of€the€Child,€in€particular€article€9,€paragraph€3,€of€which€provides:Ð . ~ ÐÌà0 4 à"States€parties€shall€respect€the€right€of€the€child€who€is€separated€from€one€or€bothÐ ú J Ðparents€to€maintain€personal€relations€and€direct€contact€with€both€parents€on€aÐ à 0 Ðregular€basis,€except€if€it€is€contrary€to€the€child's€best€interests".ÐÆ  4ü!4ü! ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð ’â  ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€he€is€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€of€theÐ ^®  ÐCovenant,€because€he€has€been€denied€family€rights€and€equality€of€treatment€by€the€SpanishÐ D”  Ðcourts€in€the€award€of€child€custody€and€because€of€the€failure€of€the€courts€to€act€promptlyÐ *z  Ðin€enforcing€a€regime€of€reasonable€parental€visits.€He€also€claims€a€violation€of€hisÐ ` Ðdaughter's€rights€under€article€24,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€since€a€child€should€beÐ öF Ðafforded€access€to€both€parents,€especially€during€her€formative€years,€except€in€very€specificÐ Ü, Ðcircumstances.€He€further€claims€that€Spanish€legislation€does€not€sufficiently€guarantee€theÐ Â Ðright€of€access€and€that€the€practice€of€Spanish€courts,€as€illustrated€by€his€own€and€manyÐ ¨ø Ðother€cases,€reveals€a€bias€in€favour€of€mothers€and€against€fathers.€Although€he€does€notÐ ŽÞ Ðspecifically€invoke€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€the€author's€allegations€also€pertain€to€thisÐ tÄ Ðprovision.Ð Zª ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€and€the€author's€comments€thereonóó:Ð &v ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party,€in€submissions€dated€14€January,€15€February,€10€April,€10€SeptemberÐ òB Ð1991€and€20€and€26€February€1992€objects€to€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€as€anÐ Ø( Ðabuse€of€the€right€of€submission€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€and€further€arguesÐ ¾ Ðthat€the€author€has€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies,€as€required€by€article€5,€paragraphÐ ¤ô Ð2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€summarizes€recent€developments€in€the€pending€proceedings€as€follows:Ð V"¦! ÐÌà0 4 àA.€òòProceedings€under€"non„contentious€jurisdiction"óóÐ"$r#4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à1.€Order€of€16€March€1990€of€the€Badalona€Court€which€suspended€the€proceedingsÐ î%>!% Ðunder€non„contentious€jurisdiction.ÐÔ&$"&4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à2.€Mr.€Balaguer,€having€been€notified€of€this€order,€filed€an€application€forÐ  (ð#( Ðreconsideration€(òòrecurso€de€reposicið;ðnóó)€of€the€order,€which€was€dismissed€on€30Ð †)Ö$) ÐApril€1990.3.€On€25€June€1990€Mr.€Balaguer€submitted€a€further€request€for€review,Ð l*¼%* Ðwith€a€subsidiary€appeal€(òòrecurso€de€reforma€y€subsidiario€de€apelacið;ðnóó).ÐR+¢&+4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à4.€Procedural€order€of€25€June€1990,€declaring€the€request€for€review€inadmissibleÐ -n(- Ðsubsequent€to€the€application€for€reconsideration€having€been€lodged€and€a€decisionÐ ° Ðgiven,€and€ordering€the€application€for€leave€to€appeal€(òòrecurso€de€apelacið;ðnóó)€to€beÐ –æ Ðprocessed.Ð|Ì4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à5.€Procedural€order€by€the€judge,€dated€18€December€1990,€ordering€the€parties€toÐ H˜ Ðbe€summoned€to€appear€before€the€Superior€Court.Ð. ~4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à6.€Receipt€of€the€orders€made€under€non„contentious€jurisdiction€by€Section€FifteenÐ ú J Ðof€the€Superior€Court€of€Barcelona,€to€which€the€appeal€lodged€by€Mr.€Balaguer€wasÐ à 0 Ðtransmitted.ÐÆ  4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à7.€Procedural€order,€dated€31€January€1991,€by€Section€Fifteen€of€the€Superior€Court,Ð ’â  Ðby€which€the€Barcelona€Bar€was€requested€to€appoint€a€court€lawyer€for€Mr.Ð xÈ  ÐBalaguer.Ð^® 4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à8.€Procedural€order,€dated€23€May€1991,€relating€to€the€appointment€of€theÐ *z  Ðrepresentative€for€Mr.€Balaguer.Ð`4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à9.€Procedural€order,€dated€21€June€1991,€authorizing€the€file€to€be€made€available€toÐ Ü, ÐMr.€Balaguer's€lawyer.ÐÂ4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à10.€On€31€January€1992,€Section€Fifteen€of€the€Superior€Court€of€BarcelonaÐ ŽÞ Ðdismissed€Mr.€Balaguer's€appeal€because€the€contentious€action€of€Ms.€MontalvoÐ tÄ Ðbefore€the€Badalona€Court€was€deemed€to€take€precedence.ÐZª4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 àB.€òòContentious€proceedings€of€minor€jurisdictionóóÐ&v4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à1.€On€10€January€1991,€in€the€contentious€proceedings€instituted€by€Ms.€MontalvoÐ òB Ðin€respect€of€parental€authority€and€custody€of€the€child,€Mr.€Balaguer€challenged€theÐ Ø( Ðcompetence€of€the€Badalona€Court€by€entering€a€written€plea€to€the€jurisdiction€onÐ ¾ Ðthe€grounds€that€he€was€domiciled€in€Barcelona.Фô4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à2.€Procedural€order€of€17€January€1991€acknowledging€the€plea€and€recording€thatÐ p!À  Ðthe€issue€of€competence€had€been€raised.ÐV"¦!4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à3.€Answer€by€the€Government€Attorney€to€the€objection€on€the€issue€of€competence,Ð "$r# Ðdated€4€March€1991,€proposing€that€it€should€be€dismissed€as€being€untimely,€sinceÐ %X $ Ðit€should€have€been€raised€within€a€period€of€six€days€following€the€summons€toÐ î%>!% Ðanswer€the€case.ÐÔ&$"&4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à4.€Procedural€order€of€6€May€1991€calling€for€evidence€on€the€contested€issue.Р(ð#(4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à5.€Procedural€order€of€10€July€1991€stating€that€the€issue€is€awaiting€decision.Ðl*¼%*4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à6.€On€12€September€1991€Mr.€Balaguer€submits€to€the€Court€information€about€hisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðjournalistic€activities€in€Barcelona.Ð-n(-4ü!4ü! Їà0 4 à7.€On€16€September€1991€the€Court€requests€clarification€from€the€Barcelona€CityÐ ° ÐHall.Жæ4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à8.€On€19€September€1991,€the€Administrative€Division€of€the€High€Court€of€JusticeÐ b² Ðof€Catalonia€requests€information€from€the€Court€concerning€the€complaint€made€byÐ H˜ ÐMr.€Balaguer€seeking€to€establish€judicial€liability€on€the€part€of€members€of€theÐ . ~ ÐBadalona€Third€Chamber.Ð d4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à9.€On€24€September€1991€the€Administrative€Division€of€the€High€Court€of€JusticeÐ à 0 Ðof€Catalonia€receives€information€from€the€Court€concerning€the€accusation€made€byÐ Æ   ÐMr.€Balaguer.Ь ü 4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à10.€On€1€October€1991€it€is€agreed€to€schedule€hearings€for€the€16th€of€that€month.ÐxÈ 4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à11.€On€15€October€1991€the€General€Council€of€the€Judiciary€is€informed€of€the€stepsÐ D”  Ðbeing€taken€in€the€case,€in€view€of€its€interest€following€the€complaint€by€Mr.Ð *z  ÐBalaguer.Ð`4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à12.€On€16€October€1991€the€parties'€counsel€and€advocates€do€not€appear€for€theÐ Ü, Ðhearings.ÐÂ4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à13.€On€18€October€1991€the€attorney€for€Ms.€Carmen€Montalvo€Quiones€requestsÐ ŽÞ Ðacceptance€of€his€withdrawal€from€the€case.ÐtÄ4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à14.€On€28€October€1991€the€Association€of€Attorneys€is€requested€to€appoint€a€newÐ @ Ðattorney€for€Ms.€Montalvo€Quiones.Ð&v4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à15.€On€31€January€1992€the€new€attorney€is€appointed.ÐòB4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à16.€On€21€February€1992€the€court€decides€to€make€a€further€request€to€the€BarcelonaÐ ¾ ÐCity€Hall€for€clarification€of€Mr.€Balaguer's€residential€status,€such€clarificationÐ ¤ô Ðbeing€required€in€order€to€resolve€the€interlocutory€matter€regarding€competenceÐ Š Ú Ðraised€by€Mr.€Balaguer.Ðp!À 4ü!4ü! ÐÌ4.3€As€to€the€duration€of€the€proceedings,€the€State€party€affirms€that€the€author€himself€isÐ <#Œ" Ðto€blame,€because€he€has€engaged€various€procedures€that€have€delayed€final€adjudicationÐ "$r# Ðof€his€case.€Moreover,€if€he€claims€that€the€proceedings€are€too€slow,€he€should€have€filedÐ %X $ Ðand€still€could€file€a€complaint€under€article€24€of€the€Spanish€Constitution.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ4.4€The€State€party€concludes€that€since€the€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Balaguer€are€being€dealtÐ º' #' Ðwith€by€the€Spanish€courts€in€the€exercise€of€Spanish€sovereignty,€domestic€remedies€haveÐ  (ð#( Ðnot€been€exhausted,€and€that€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ4.5€With€regard€to€the€merits,€the€State€party€indicates€that€on€two€occasions€the€authorÐ R+¢&+ Ðmisused€his€visiting€rights€by€keeping€his€daughter€longer€than€permitted.€It€denies€anyÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdiscrimination€in€the€pertinent€Spanish€law€and€indicates,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€competent€judgeÐ -n(- Ðacted€pursuant€to€the€law€applicable€in€1986€(article€159€of€the€Civil€Code),€which€providedÐ ° Ðas€follows:€"if€the€parents€are€separated€and€do€not€decide€by€mutual€agreement,€male€andÐ –æ Ðfemale€children€less€than€seven€years€of€age€shall€remain€in€the€custody€of€the€mother,€unlessÐ |Ì Ðthe€judge€for€special€reasons€rules€otherwise".€Article€160€provides€that:€"the€father€and€theÐ b² Ðmother,€even€if€not€exercising€parental€authority,€shall€have€the€right€of€access€to€their€minorÐ H˜ Ðchildren".€The€State€party€contends€that€these€provisions€are€fully€compatible€with€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant€and€refers€in€this€connection€to€the€Committee's€Views€on€communication€No.Ð  d Ð201/1985,€òòHendriks€v.€The€Netherlandsóó€òò1óó.Ð ú J ÐÌ5.1€As€to€the€delays€in€the€proceedings,€the€author€informed€the€Committee€on€21€AugustÐ Æ   Ð1991€that:Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ(a)€From€the€date€of€his€initial€petition€for€visiting€rights€(relacið;ðn€paterno„filial)€there€hasÐ xÈ  Ðbeen€an€interval€of€1,747€days€(5ðð€years€as€of€the€time€of€the€present€decision€by€theÐ ^®  ÐCommittee);Ð D”  ÐÌ(b)€The€interval€between€the€Badalona€Court's€order€and€the€Superior€Court's€confirmatoryÐ ` Ðorder€was€360€days;Ð öF ÐÌ(c)€The€interval€between€the€Superior€Court's€order€and€the€Badalona€Court's€order€ofÐ Â Ðsuspension€was€238€days.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ5.2€He€further€adds€that€following€the€order€by€the€court€of€first€instance€suspending€an€orderÐ tÄ Ðfrom€a€superior€court,€proceedings€have€been€delayed€for€no€apparent€reason:Ð Zª ÐÌ(a)€The€interval€between€the€submission€of€the€appeal€against€the€suspension€order€(22Ð &v ÐMarch€1990)€and€the€transfer€of€the€case€to€the€Superior€Court€was€300€days;Ð  \ ÐÌ(b)€The€time€elapsed€from€the€submission€of€the€appeal€(22€March€1990)€to€date€(AugustÐ Ø( Ð1991)€has€been€517€days.Ð ¾ ÐÌ5.3€The€author€thus€complains€that€as€of€August€1991€the€court€had€not€decided€on€hisÐ Š Ú Ðapplication€for€visiting€arrangements€and€had€not€made€a€ruling,€although€1,747€days€hadÐ p!À  Ðelapsed.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ5.4€By€letter€of€24€February€1992€the€author€challenges€the€rationale€of€the€decision€of€theÐ "$r# ÐSuperior€Court€of€Barcelona€of€31€January€1992,€suspending€his€previously€recognized€rightÐ %X $ Ðto€access,€which€he€had€been€unable€to€exercise€in€view€of€"the€mother's€intransigence€andÐ î%>!% Ðopposition€in€attitude€of€revenge".€He€adds€that€this€last€decision€under€the€regime€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðvoluntary€jurisdiction€is€not€subject€to€appeal.Ð º' #' ÐÌ5.5€The€author€claims€that€the€application€of€domestic€remedies€in€his€case€has€beenÐ †)Ö$) Ðunreasonably€prolonged,€within€the€meaning€of€article€5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€OptionalÐ l*¼%* ÐProtocol.€In€this€context€he€refers€to€the€Committee's€admissibility€decision€inÐ R+¢&+ Ðcommunication€No.€238/1987.€òò2óóÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€decisionóó:Ð ° ÐÌ6.1€During€its€44th€session€in€March€1992,€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€ofÐ |Ì Ðthe€communication.€The€Committee€first€considered€whether€the€author€had€standing€to€actÐ b² Ðon€his€daughter's€behalf,€as€he€was€not€the€custodial€parent.€It€noted€that€it€was€evident€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€author's€daughter€could€not€herself€submit€a€communication€to€the€Committee,€andÐ . ~ Ðfurther€observed€that€the€bond€between€a€father€and€his€daughter,€as€well€as€the€nature€of€theÐ  d Ðallegations€in€the€case,€were€sufficient€to€justify€representation€of€the€author's€daughter€byÐ ú J Ðher€father.Ð à 0 ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€ascertained€that€the€same€matter€was€not€being€considered€under€anotherÐ ¬ ü  Ðprocedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.Ð ’â  ÐÌ6.3€As€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€noted€the€StateÐ ^®  Ðparty's€indication€that€proceedings€in€the€case€remained€pending.€It€observed€that€Mr.Ð D”  ÐBalaguer's€attempts€to€vindicate€a€right€of€access€to€his€daughter€had€begun€in€1986€and€thatÐ *z  Ðhe€had€not€seen€his€daughter€for€several€years.€Taking€into€account€the€proviso€in€article€5,Ð ` Ðparagraph€2(b),€about€òòundue€prolongationóó€of€remedies,€coupled€with€the€fact€that€theÐ öF Ðsituation€(in€1992)€prevented€both€the€author€and€his€daughter€from€having€contact€with€eachÐ Ü, Ðother,€the€Committee€deemed€it€unreasonable€to€expect€the€author€to€continue€awaiting€aÐ Â Ðfinal€decision€on€custody€and€visiting€rights€and€considered€a€delay€of€over€five€years€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðdetermination,€at€first€instance,€of€a€right€of€access€in€custodial€disputes€to€be€excessive.€ItÐ ŽÞ Ðconcluded€that€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€did€not€preclude€it€from€considering€the€merits€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€case.Ð Zª ÐÌ6.4€On€25€March€1992,€the€Committee€declared€the€communication€admissible€in€so€far€asÐ &v Ðit€appeared€to€raise€issues€under€articles€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€24,€paragraph€1,€and€26€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€Covenant.Ð òB ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€submission€on€the€merits€and€the€author's€comments€thereonóó:Ð ¾ ÐÌ7.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€16Ð Š Ú ÐNovember€1992,€the€State€party€challenges€the€Committee's€conclusion€that€the€author€hasÐ p!À  Ðstanding€to€act€on€his€daughter's€behalf.€In€this€context,€it€noted€that€it€ascertained€thatÐ V"¦! ÐÌ„€the€author€never€complied€with€his€obligations,€agreed€to€in€January€1987€with€the€child'sÐ "$r# Ðmother,€to€contribute€financially€to€the€girl's€upbringing;Ð %X $ ÐÌ„€his€allegations€relating€to€the€poor€physical€health€of€his€daughter€have€proven€false;Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ„€his€allegations€relating€to€the€presumed€disorderly€lifestyle€of€the€mother€have€been€provenÐ  (ð#( Ðwholly€false;€andÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌ„€the€author€òòneveróó€purported€to€act€as€representative€of€his€daughter€in€the€domestic€judicialÐ R+¢&+ Ðproceedings.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð7.2€As€to€whether€the€same€matter€is€under€examination€by€another€instance€of€internationalÐ ° Ðinvestigation€or€settlement,€the€State€party€questions€the€veracity€of€the€author's€initialÐ –æ Ðsubmissions€to€the€Committee,€given€thatÐ |Ì ÐÌ„€he€has€written€twice€to€the€office€of€examining€magistrate€of€Badalona€with€indications€thatÐ H˜ Ðhis€case€is€pending€before€the€"international€court€of€justice"€(tribunal€internacional€deÐ . ~ Ðjusticia)€so€as€to€vindicate€his€rights;€Ð  d ÐÌ„€he€has€indicated€to€the€same€office€that€he€has€presented€his€case€to€UNESCO€in€Paris,€inÐ à 0 Ðhis€function€as€"secretary„general"€of€a€non„governmental€organization.Ð Æ   ÐÌIn€the€circumstances,€the€State€party€requests€the€Committee's€confirmation€that€theÐ ’â  Ðrequirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2(a),€of€the€Protocol€have€been€met.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ7.3€As€to€the€issue€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€reiterates€that€bothÐ D”  Ðin€respect€of€non„contentious€jurisdiction€and€contentious€proceedings€of€minor€jurisdictionÐ *z  Ð(see€paragraph€4.2€above),€available€and€effective€domestic€remedies€have€not€beenÐ ` Ðexhausted.€With€respect€to€the€purported€"undue€prolongation"€of€domestic€remedies,€theÐ öF ÐState€party€emphasizes€that€this€rule€is€inapplicable€in€the€author's€case,€as€all€the€delays€inÐ Ü, Ðthe€proceedings€(both€non„contentious€and€contentious)€are€solely€attributable€to€Mr.Ð Â ÐBalaguer.€Thus,€the€author's€own€behaviour€and€his€repeated€refusal€to€comply€with€theÐ ¨ø Ðterms€of€access€initially€agreed€upon€led€to€the€decision€of€the€Badalona€Court€of€16€MarchÐ ŽÞ Ð1990€to€suspend€proceedings€under€non„contentious€jurisdiction.€As€to€the€contentiousÐ tÄ Ðjurisdiction,€the€State€party€recalls€that€the€author€himself€is€the€defendant€in€theseÐ Zª Ðproceedings€„€as€a€result,€he€has€seen€fit€to€delay€these€proceedings€as€much€as€possible,Ð @ Ðeither€by€challenging€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Court€of€Badalona€or€by€changing€legalÐ &v Ðrepresentatives.€The€State€party€notes€that€all€legal€representatives€assigned€to€or€chosen€byÐ  \ Ðthe€author€have,€after€varying€periods€of€time,€refused€to€represent€him€any€further.Ð òB ÐÌ7.4€The€State€party€explains€that€the€custody€of€children€(òòpatria€potestad)óó€is€governed€byÐ ¾ Ðarticles€154,€156€and€159€of€the€Civil€Code.€Article€159€was€amended€in€October€1990€byÐ ¤ô ÐLaw€11/1990,€out€of€concern€that€the€previous€provision,€which€as€a€rule€gave€custody€to€theÐ Š Ú Ðmother€save€under€exceptional€circumstances,€discriminated€on€the€basis€of€sex.€Under€theÐ p!À  Ðprovision€as€amended,€the€judge€must€decide,€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children,€which€ofÐ V"¦! Ðthe€parents€will€be€awarded€custody€and,€to€the€extent€that€this€is€possible€and€reasonable,Ð <#Œ" Ðhear€the€children;€it€is€mandatory€to€hear€children€over€the€age€of€12.€The€State€party€pointsÐ "$r# Ðout€that€at€no€point,€before€the€change€in€legislation€of€afterwards,€did€the€author€seekÐ %X $ Ðcustody€of€his€daughter,€either€before€the€local€courts€or€before€the€Committee.€By€contrast,Ð î%>!% Ðit€was€the€girl's€mother€who,€since€the€end€of€1989,€has€sought€to€obtain€a€ruling€on€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðexclusive€custody€of€the€child.7.5€The€State€party€recalls€that€the€right€of€access€of€parentsÐ º' #' Ðto€their€children€is€governed€by€article€160€of€the€Civil€Code.€Under€article€159,€paragraphÐ  (ð#( Ð3,€the€judge€decides€on€the€modalities€of€access€and€on€the€special€conditions€of€access,€withÐ †)Ö$) Ða€view€to€avoiding€that€any€harm€be€done€to€the€children.€The€State€party€rejects€as€"totallyÐ l*¼%* Ðunjustified"€and€unsubstantiated€the€author's€claim€that€his€right€of€access€has€been€violatedÐ R+¢&+ Ð("Es€una€...€denuncia€radicalmente€falsa").Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð7.6€The€State€party€affirms€that€article€23,€paragraph€1,€does€not€apply€in€the€author's€case.Ð ° ÐIt€argues€that€the€cohabitation,€of€limited€duration,€from€April€1985€until€shortly€after€theÐ –æ Ðbirth€of€Maria€del€Carmen,€between€the€author,€a€44„year€old€married€man,€and€CarmenÐ |Ì ÐMontalvo,€a€17„year€old€minor,€does€not€qualify€as€a€"family"€within€the€meaning€of€articleÐ b² Ð23,€paragraph€1.€Furthermore,€the€relationship€between€the€author€and€Ms.€Montalvo,€highlyÐ H˜ Ðproblematic€while€it€lasted€and€never€placed€on€firm€legal€grounds,€cannot,€in€the€StateÐ . ~ Ðparty's€opinion,€be€deemed€a€"fundamental€[element]€of€society"€which€is€entitled€toÐ  d Ð"protection€by€society€and€the€State".€Rather,€the€State€party€qualifies€the€author's€behaviourÐ ú J Ðas€bigamy.Ð à 0 ÐÌ7.7€In€the€State€party's€opinion,€article€23,€paragraph€4,€cannot€apply€in€the€author's€caseÐ ¬ ü  Ðeither,€as€the€author€never€formalized€his€relationship€with€Ms.€Montalvo,€either€throughÐ ’â  Ðmarriage€or€other€legal€arrangements.€As€a€result,€there€cannot€be€any€question€of€aÐ xÈ  Ð"dissolution"€of€a€marriage€within€the€meaning€of€article€23,€paragraph€4,€first€sentence,Ð ^®  Ðwhich€would€trigger€the€State€party's€obligation€to€guarantee€the€equality€of€rights€andÐ D”  Ðresponsibilities€of€spouses.€The€State€emphasizes€that€the€author€òòwasóó€married€when€a€childÐ *z  Ðwas€born€out€of€his€relationship€with€Ms.€Montalvo.Ð ` ÐÌ7.8€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€24,€paragraph€1,€the€State€party€affirms€that€theÐ Ü, Ðauthor's€daughter€has€not€suffered€discrimination€of€any€type,€and€that,€as€a€minor,€she€isÐ Â Ðgiven€the€requisite€measures€of€protection,€both€by€her€mother€and€by€the€State.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ7.9€The€State€party€dismisses€as€absolutely€unfounded€("radicalmente€falsa")€the€author'sÐ tÄ Ðallegations€under€article€26,€namely€that€he€is€discriminated€against€in€relation€to€his€rightÐ Zª Ðof€access€to€his€daughter.€It€explains€that€under€Spanish€legislation,€no€distinction€is€madeÐ @ Ðbetween€legitimate€and€illegitimate€children;€for€both,€the€parents€have€the€same€rights€andÐ &v Ðresponsibilities,€which€are€guaranteed€by€law.€In€particular,€òòanyóó€parent€has€the€right€of€accessÐ  \ Ðto€his€or€her€child;€in€conflictual€situations,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€(family)€judge€to€takeÐ òB Ðthe€necessary€measures€to€avoid€any€harm€to€the€children.€The€procedure,€the€State€partyÐ Ø( Ðsubmits,€was€strictly€followed€in€the€author's€case.Ð ¾ ÐÌ7.10€In€this€context,€the€State€party€recalls€that€the€author€and€Ms.€Montalvo€agreed,€inÐ Š Ú ÐJanuary€1987€and€with€the€approval€of€a€judge,€upon€a€visiting€rights€regime,€under€whichÐ p!À  Ðthe€girl€could€spend€several€days€during€every€second€weekend€("unos€dias")€with€the€author.Ð V"¦! ÐThe€first€time€the€author€made€use€of€this€right,€he€disappeared€with€the€child€for€four€days,Ð <#Œ" Ðand€the€mother€had€to€travel€to€Paris,€where€she€found€the€child,€according€to€the€State€party,Ð "$r# Ðin€disgraceful€circumstances€("en€lamentables€condiciones").€The€second€time,€the€authorÐ %X $ Ðonce€again€took€off€with€his€daughter,€this€time€for€four€months,€during€which€he€did€notÐ î%>!% Ðmaintain€a€fixed€domicile,€taking€refuge,€at€one€point,€in€a€religious€institution.€ThoseÐ Ô&$"& Ðincidents,€the€State€party€affirms,€did€not€deprive€the€author€of€his€right€of€access.7.11€AfterÐ º' #' Ðappropriate€psychological€tests,€the€parents,€again€with€the€judge's€approval,€agreed€that€theÐ  (ð#( Ðauthor€could€visit€his€daughter€in€an€appropriate€public€institution€or€public€place.€This€formÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€contact€between€father€and€daughter€produced€unsatisfactory€results,€as€the€childÐ l*¼%* Ðdisplayed€signs€of€anguish€and€discomfort€during€the€visits.€Thereafter,€the€mother€proposed,Ð R+¢&+ Ðand€the€judge€agreed€to,€that€contacts€between€the€author€and€his€daughter€take€place€at€herÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhome;€under€the€terms€of€this€agreement,€the€author€would€be€allowed€to€see€his€daughterÐ -n(- Ðalone,€in€the€mother's€absence€but€with€the€assistance€of€the€police€(òòMossos€d'esquadraóó).Ð ° ÐÌ7.12€According€to€the€State€party,€the€author€rejected€this€form€of€contact€with€his€daughter.Ð |Ì ÐRather,€he€requested€that€the€child€be€brought€to€an€orphanage€("un€establecimiento€deÐ b² Ðacogida,€es€decir€un€orfanato"),€where€he€would€then€visit€her.€Faced€with€this€attitude€of€theÐ H˜ Ðauthor,€and€given€that€the€mother€had,€in€the€meantime,€initiated€judicial€proceedings,€theÐ . ~ Ðjudge€suspended€non„contentious€proceedings€by€decision€of€14€March€1990.€The€State€partyÐ  d Ðunderlines€that€this€decision€did€not€deny€the€author€his€right€of€access€to€his€daughter.Ð ú J ÐÌ7.13€The€author,€rather€than€accepting€the€visiting€rights€regime€negotiated€earlier,Ð Æ   Ðproceeded€to€file€recourse€upon€recourse,€requesting€that€the€initial€visiting€rights€regime€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐJanuary€1987€be€reinstated.€The€State€party€notes€that,€significantly,€the€author€has€neverÐ ’â  Ðfiled€similar€requests€in€the€context€of€the€contentious€proceedings.€The€State€partyÐ xÈ  Ðconcludes€that€òòno€one,óó€be€it€the€mother,€the€authorities€or€the€judge,€has€denied€the€authorÐ ^®  Ðthe€right€of€access€to€his€daughter;€rather,€the€latter€has€simply€refused€to€avail€himself€of€theÐ D”  Ðformula€deemed€by€all€to€be€the€one€that€is€in€the€child's€best€interest,€namely€contactsÐ *z  Ðbetween€child€and€father€in€the€mother's€home€but€in€her€absence.Ð ` ÐÌ7.14€In€the€light€of€all€of€the€above,€and€given€that€the€author€has€at€times€chosen€toÐ Ü, Ðmisrepresent€his€situation€and€deliberately€to€distort€his€claims€both€before€the€local€courtsÐ Â Ðand€before€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€the€State€party€requests€that€the€CommitteeÐ ¨ø Ðdismiss€Mr.€Balaguer's€complaint€as€an€abuse€of€the€right€of€submission.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ8.1€In€his€comments,€dated€June€and€6€September€1993,€the€author€dismisses€the€State€party'sÐ Zª Ðsubmission€as€untruthful,€distorting€the€facts,€devious€and€reflecting€the€outdated€societalÐ @ Ðand€family€concepts€of€the€Spanish€authorities€and/or€the€law.€The€Committee,€afterÐ &v Ðcarefully€examining€the€author's€comments,€however,€feels€obliged€to€note€that€theyÐ  \ Ðfrequently€amount€to€critical€comments€directed€against€the€government€official€responsibleÐ òB Ðfor€the€State€party's€submission€in€the€instant€case.€To€the€extent€that€this€is€the€case,€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€will€not€consider€the€author's€comments.Ð ¾ ÐÌ8.2€Mr.€Balaguer€reaffirms€that€he€is€entitled€to€represent€his€daughter€before€the€Committee,Ð Š Ú Ðnot€however€by€refuting€the€State€party's€observations€but€by€reference€to€paragraph€6.2€ofÐ p!À  Ðthe€Committee's€decision€on€admissibility.€He€confirms€that€his€case€has€not€been€presentedÐ V"¦! Ðto€another€instance€of€international€investigation€or€settlement€and€contends€that€the€StateÐ <#Œ" Ðparty's€doubts€in€this€respect€are€designed€to€discredit€him.Ð "$r# ÐÌ8.3€To€the€State€party's€reaffirmation€that€domestic€remedies€have€not€been€exhausted€andÐ î%>!% Ðthat€delays€in€the€adjudication€of€the€matter€must€be€attributed€to€the€author€himself,€Mr.Ð Ô&$"& ÐBalaguer€replies€that€the€judge€of€the€Badalona€Court€has€never€seen€fit€to€handle€theÐ º' #' Ðrequests€to€determine€the€issue€of€custody€and€visiting€rights€properly€and€in€accordance€withÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€applicable€law.€No€indication€is,€however,€given€as€to€which€laws€and€regulations€haveÐ †)Ö$) Ðnot€been€observed€by€the€State€party's€judicial€authorities.€The€author€adds€that€he€cannotÐ l*¼%* Ðexhaust€domestic€available€remedies,€by€way€of€appeal€or€òòamparoóó,€since€the€court€of€firstÐ R+¢&+ Ðinstance€had€not€handed€down€a€decision€at€first€instance€more€than€seven€years€after€hisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinitial€petition.Ð -n(- Ї8.4€The€author€reaffirms€that€he€is€a€victim€of€violations€of€articles€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,Ð ° Ð24,€paragraph€1,€and€26;€he€does€so€by€reference€to€his€earlier€submissions,€which€in€hisÐ –æ Ðopinion€clearly€demonstrate€that€his€allegations€are€well„founded.€In€particular,€he€submitsÐ |Ì Ðthat€the€relationship€with€his€daughter€must€be€subsumed€under€the€term€"family"€within€theÐ b² Ðmeaning€of€article€23,€paragraph€1,€and€that€the€family€unit€has€not€benefitted€from€theÐ H˜ Ðrequisite€protection€of€the€State.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ8.5€Apart€from€violations€of€the€Covenant,€the€author€contends€that€the€Spanish€authoritiesÐ ú J Ðhave€violated€article€9€of€the€Convention€on€the€Rights€of€the€Child€(CRC)€in€his€case,€andÐ à 0 Ðin€particular€of€paragraph€3€of€this€provision,€which€he€claims€guarantees€the€contact€withÐ Æ   Ðboth€mother€and€father€for€children€whose€parents€are€separated.€It€is€submitted€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðattitude€of€the€judicial€authorities€in€the€case€constitute€a€violation€of€article€9€CRC,Ð ’â  Ðnotwithstanding€the€Government's€assurance€that€the€CRC€would€be€incorporated€intoÐ xÈ  Ðdomestic€law.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ8.6€The€author€accuses€the€State€party€of€not€citing,€or€citing€incorrectly,€the€applicableÐ *z  Ðdomestic€laws€and€regulations,€the€relevant€jurisprudence€of€domestic€tribunals,€or€relevantÐ ` Ðinternational€instruments.€A€careful€analysis€of€his€comments€reveals,€however,€that€he€doesÐ öF Ðnot€himself€cite€any€provisions€of€the€Spanish€Civil€Code,€the€Code€of€Civil€Procedure,Ð Ü, Ðregulations€governing€family€relations,€or€the€jurisprudence€of€the€domestic€courts,€save€forÐ Â Ðunidentified€excerpts€of€Supreme€Court€or€Constitutional€Court€decisions.Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòReview€of€admissibility€issues€and€examination€of€the€meritsóó:Ð tÄ ÐÌ9.1€The€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€of€all€theÐ @ Ðinformation€provided€by€the€parties.€It€takes€note€of€the€State€party's€reiterated€request€thatÐ &v Ðthe€complaint€be€dismissed€as€an€abuse€of€the€right€of€submission,€as€well€as€the€author'sÐ  \ Ðrebuttal.Ð òB ÐÌ9.2€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€State€party's€observations€questioning€the€decisionÐ ¾ Ðon€admissibility€of€25€March€1992.€Having€duly€considered€the€arguments€summarized€inÐ ¤ô Ðparagraphs€7.1€to€7.3€above,€the€Committee€concludes€that€there€is€no€reasonto€revise€itsÐ Š Ú Ðdecision€on€admissibility.òò€3óó€Firstly,€in€respect€of€the€question€of€the€author's€standing€toÐ p!À  Ðrepresent€his€daughter,€it€reiterates€that€standing€under€the€Optional€Protocol€may€beÐ V"¦! Ðdetermined€independently€of€national€regulations€and€legislation€governing€an€individual'sÐ <#Œ" Ðstanding€before€a€court€of€law.€This€means€that€regardless€of€what€Mr.€Balaguer€did€toÐ "$r# Ðrepresent€his€daughter's€interests€before€the€Spanish€courts,€the€considerations€in€paragraphÐ %X $ Ð6.2€above€apply.€Secondly,€the€Committee€has€ascertained€that€the€author's€case€is€òònotóóÐ î%>!% Ðpending€before€another€instance€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Finally,€whileÐ Ô&$"& Ðit€is€true€that€many€delays€in€the€proceedings€must€be€attributed€to€the€author€himself,€itÐ º' #' Ðnonetheless€remains€that€after€several€years€of€contentious€proceedings,€there€is€no€evidenceÐ  (ð#( Ðof€a€judicial€decision€at€first€instance.€In€a€dispute€about€custody€rights€and€access€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðchildren,€the€Committee€considers€this€delay€to€be€unreasonable.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ10.1€On€the€merits,€the€questions€before€the€Committee€concern€the€scope€of€articles€23,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðparagraphs€1€and€4,€and€24,€paragraph€1,€i.e.€whether€these€provisions€guarantee€anÐ -n(- Ðunqualified€right€of€access€for€a€divorced€or€separated€parent,€or€not,€and€a€child's€right€toÐ ° Ðhave€contact€with€both€parents.€Another€issue€is€whether€decisions€on€custody€and€accessÐ –æ Ðrights€in€the€case€have€been€based€on€distinctions€made€between€fathers€and€mothers€and,Ð |Ì Ðif€so,€whether€these€distinctions€are€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€criteria,€as€followsÐ b² Ðfrom€the€application€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð H˜ ÐÌ10.2€The€State€party€has€argued€that€article€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€do€not€apply€to€the€case,Ð  d Ðas€the€author's€unstable€relationship€with€Ms.€Montalvo€cannot€be€subsumed€under€the€termÐ ú J Ð"family",€and€no€marital€ties€between€the€author€and€Ms.€Montalvo€ever€existed.€TheÐ à 0 ÐCommittee€begins€by€noting€that€the€term€"family"€must€be€understood€broadly;€it€reaffirmsÐ Æ   Ðthat€the€concept€refers€not€solely€to€the€family€home€during€marriage€or€cohabitation,€butÐ ¬ ü  Ðalso€to€the€relations€in€general€between€parents€and€childòò€4óó.€Some€minimal€requirements€forÐ ’â  Ðthe€existence€of€a€family€are€however€necessary,€such€as€life€together,€economic€ties,€aÐ xÈ  Ðregular€and€intense€relationship,€etc.Ð ^®  ÐÌ10.3€In€the€instant€case,€irrespective€of€the€nature€of€the€author's€relationship€with€Ms.Ð *z  ÐMontalvo,€the€Committee€observes€that€the€State€party€has€always€acknowledged€that€theÐ ` Ðrelations€between€the€author€and€his€daughter€were€protected€by€the€law,€and€that€the€mother,Ð öF Ðbetween€1986€and€1990,€never€objected€to€the€author's€contacts€with€his€daughter.€It€wasÐ Ü, Ðonly€after€Mr.€Balaguer€continuously€failed€to€observe,€and€objected€to,€the€modalities€of€hisÐ Â Ðrightof€access,€that€she€sought€exclusive€custody€and€non„contentious€proceedings€wereÐ ¨ø Ðsuspended.€The€Committee€concludes€that€there€has€been€no€violation€of€article€23,Ð ŽÞ Ðparagraph€1.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ10.4€The€Committee€further€notes€that€article€23,€paragraph€4,€does€not€apply€in€the€instantÐ @ Ðcase,€as€Mr.€Balaguer€was€never€married€to€Ms.€Montalvo.€If€paragraph€4€is€placed€into€theÐ &v Ðoverall€context€of€article€23,€it€becomes€clear€that€the€protection€of€the€second€sentenceÐ  \ Ðrefers€only€to€children€of€the€òòmarriageóó€which€is€being€dissolved.€In€any€event,€the€materialÐ òB Ðbefore€the€Committee€justifies€the€conclusion€that€the€State€party's€authorities,€whenÐ Ø( Ðdetermining€custody€or€access€issues€in€the€case,€always€took€the€child's€best€interests€intoÐ ¾ Ðconsideration.€This€is€true€also€for€the€decisions€of€the€Third€Chamber€of€the€Court€ofÐ ¤ô ÐBadalona,€which€the€author€has€singled€out€in€particular.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ10.5€The€author€has€claimed€a€violation€of€article€24,€paragraph€1,€since€his€daughter,€as€aÐ V"¦! Ðminor,€has€not€benefitted€from€the€appropriate€measures€of€protection,€by€law€or€otherwise,Ð <#Œ" Ðon€the€part€of€her€family€and€the€State.€The€Committee€cannot€share€this€conclusion.€On€theÐ "$r# Ðone€hand,€the€girl's€mother€has,€on€the€basis€of€the€available€documentation,€fulfilled€herÐ %X $ Ðobligations€as€custodian€of€the€child;€secondly,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€applicableÐ î%>!% ÐSpanish€law,€in€particular€Sections€154,€156,€159€and€160€of€the€Civil€Code,€do€not€provideÐ Ô&$"& Ðfor€appropriate€protection€of€children€upon€dissolution€of€a€marriage€or€the€separation€ofÐ º' #' Ðunmarried€parents.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ10.6€Finally,€having€examined€the€material€before€it,€the€Committee€concludes€that€no€issuesÐ l*¼%* Ðarise€under€article€26€in€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€There€is€no€indication€that€the€authorÐ R+¢&+ Ðwas€treated€arbitrarily€and€on€the€basis€of€unreasonable€criteria€by€the€Spanish€authorities,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðor€that€he€was€treated€differently€from€others€in€a€similar€situation.Ð -n(- Ї11.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ ° ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ –æ Ðfacts€before€it€do€not€reveal€a€breach€by€the€State€party€of€any€of€the€provisions€of€theÐ |Ì ÐCovenant.Ð b² ÐÌÌòòFootnotesóóÐ  d ÐÌ*/€€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.Ð à 0 ÐÌ*/€€€A€concurring€individual€opinion€by€Committee€member€Elizabeth€Evatt€is€appended€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€text€of€the€Views.Ð ’â  ÐÌ1/€€€Views€adopted€on€27€July€1988.Ð ^®  ÐÌ2/€€€Floresmilo€Bola€€os€v.€Ecuador€,€Views€adopted€on€26€July€1989.Ð *z  ÐÌ3/€€€The€Committee€regrets€that€subsequent€to€the€decision€on€admissibility,€the€parties€haveÐ öF Ðbecome€locked€in€disputes€that€are€of€little€relevance€to€the€content€of€the€initialÐ Ü, Ðcommunication.€It€notes€that€the€file€reveals€that€the€author€used€his€demarches€before€theÐ Â ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€for€purposes€of€the€proceedings,€to€which€he€is€party,€before€theÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€of€Badalona.€Thus,€it€transpires€that€he€used€United€Nations€stationery€inÐ ŽÞ Ðcorrespondence€with€the€Court€of€Badalona,€although€he€was€not€authorized€to€do€so.€WhileÐ tÄ Ðthese€occurrences€do€not€have€a€direct€bearing€on€the€examination€of€communication€No.Ð Zª Ð417/1990,€they€may€discredit€the€procedure€under€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð @ ÐÌ4/€€€See€Views€on€communication€No.€201/1985€(€Hendriks€v.€The€Netherlands€),€adoptedÐ  \ Ðon€27€July€1988,€paragraph€10.3.Ð òB ÐÌÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð ¤ô ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ Š Ú Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]Ð p!À  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓAppendixó óóóÐ "$r# ÐÓ„ºÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€(concurring)€by€Mrs.€Elizabeth€Evatt€under€rule€94,€paragraph€3,€of€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐCommittee's€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€communication€No.€417/1990€óóÐ º' #' Ð(òòManuel€Balaguer€Santacana€v.€Spainóó)Ð  (ð#( ÐÌI€agree€with€the€Committee's€conclusion€that€there€has€been€no€violation€of€the€author's€rightsÐ l*¼%* Ðunder€the€Covenant.€I€agree€also€that,€in€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€it€is€not€necessary€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðapply€article€23,€paragraph€4,€since€the€measures€of€protection€required€for€a€minor€underÐ 8,ˆ', Ðarticle€24,€paragraph€1,€also€require€that€decisions€about€custody€and€access€(visiting€rights)Ð -n(- Ðbe€decided€on€the€basis€of€the€child's€best€interests.Ð ° ÐÌI€do€not€agree,€however,€with€an€interpretation€of€the€concept€of€"marriage"€in€article€23,Ð |Ì Ðparagraph€4,€which€would€automatically€exclude€its€application€to€relationships€which,€whileÐ b² Ðnot€"formal"€marriages,€are€in€the€nature€of€marriage€and€share€many€of€its€attributesÐ H˜ Ðincluding€joint€responsibility€for€the€care€and€upbringing€of€children.€Legal€regimes€applyingÐ . ~ Ðto€such€relationships€should,€in€my€view,€be€in€conformity€with€article€23,€paragraph€4.Ð  d ÐÌElizabeth€EvattÐ à 0 ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð ¬ ü  ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ ’â  Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€