The case of N.R. v. Paraguay. Views of the Committee on the Rights of the Child dated February 3, 2020. Communication No. 30/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Paraguay.
The failure of the State party to take effective measures to respect the right of the author's daughter to maintain personal relations and direct contact with her father on a regular basis has deprived her of the opportunity to exercise her rights enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the long period of time that has elapsed since the court decision establishing the communication regime was adopted in 2015, and taking into account the young age of the author's daughter at that time, the Committee on the Rights of the Child concluded that the authorities did not ensure timely enforcement of the court's decision in practice and did not take the necessary measures to in order to guarantee the author's communication with his daughter. The Committee concluded: This amounts to a violation of article 3, article 9, paragraph 3, and article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author claimed that the State party's authorities did not take into account the principle of the best interests of the child, as required by article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, since they did not take any measures to implement the decision establishing the author's mode of communication with his daughter.
The Committee's legal position: In accordance with article 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, States parties are obliged to respect the right of a child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contacts with both parents on a regular basis, except in cases where this is contrary to the principle of the best interests of the child: the task of preserving family The environment also provides for the preservation of the child's connections in a broader sense. Such connections are especially important in cases where the parents have stopped living together or live in different countries (paragraph 8.4 of the Considerations).
Court proceedings to establish the rights of a child to communicate with a parent from whom he is separated should be conducted promptly, since lost time can have irreparable consequences for their relationship. This implies prompt enforcement of decisions taken as a result of such proceedings (paragraph 8.7 of the Considerations).
As a rule, the examination of facts and evidence falls within the competence of national authorities, except in cases where such examination is obviously arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice. The Committee's task is to ensure that their assessment is not arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice and that the best interests of the child are given priority in this assessment (paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was found that (a) the State party did not take the necessary measures to enforce the final court decision of 30 April 2015 on the regime of visits and other forms of contact and that the consequences of this decision continued to occur after 20 April 2017, the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for (b) The author of the communication was forced to complain about delays in the judicial proceedings; (c) The authorities of the State party have not taken any of the measures provided for in its legislation to ensure the enforcement of the above-mentioned final judgment (paragraph 8.3 of the Views).
The Committee noted that the decision of 30 April 2015 established a visiting regime for the author and his daughter. However, despite the author's repeated requests over the years for the execution of this decision and the court's decision of April 25, 2017, ordering the mother to facilitate the author's communication with K.R. through the Skype program, this decision was never executed. The Committee took into account the author's argument, which has not been refuted by the State party, that despite the decision to involve a social worker and the decision to take a temporary measure in the form of communication through the San Jose school, K.R. could not exercise her right to maintain direct, personal and regular contact with her father for more than less than four years (paragraph 8.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee took note of the author's argument, which was not disputed by the State party, that despite his numerous attempts to ensure compliance with the visiting regime established by the court decision of 30 April 2015, this decision was not enforced, and he was unable to maintain regular and full communication with his daughter for many years. In this regard, the Committee took into account the information received by the social worker from the mother and included in the court decision of April 25, 2017 that she did not have the financial means to connect to the Internet and that her daughter herself did not want to come to her father on vacation because she did not spend much time with him. At the time of its decision, the court considered that the girl's communication with her father was in her best interests. If this court decision had been implemented in practice, the problem of the girl's gradual separation from her father could have been avoided. The Committee concluded that the authorities had not taken sufficient measures at the appropriate time to ensure that the above-mentioned decision was enforced by the child's mother (paragraph 8.7 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The failure of the State party to take effective measures to respect the right of the author's daughter to maintain personal relations and direct contact with her father on a regular basis deprived her of the opportunity to enjoy her rights enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the long period of time that has elapsed since the court decision establishing the communication regime was adopted in 2015, and taking into account the young age of the author's daughter at that time, the Committee concluded that the authorities did not ensure timely enforcement of the court's decision in practice and did not take the necessary measures to to ensure the author's communication with his daughter. The Committee concluded that this amounted to a violation of articles 3, paragraph 3 of articles 9 and paragraph 2 of article 10 of the Convention (paragraph 8.8 of the Views).