CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 7.3 The Committee found, with one dissenting opinion, the communication admissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, and concluded that even assuming that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, the application of those remedies was unlikely to bring effective relief to the author. 5 7.4 The Committee observed that the author was subject to domestic violence by her abusive partner; that she belongs to the indigenous community; and that the housing in question was earmarked for the indigenous community, despite which, the author was advised by the Housing Authority to include her partner as her spouse and apply for a family unit, thereby denying her the sole right; that the author was forcibly evicted by her partner and his estate after the alleged connivance with the Housing Authority Board, and as a result, to this date, has not received her share in the estate. The Committee further noted that under general recommendation 19, it is the obligation of the State party concerned to exercise due diligence to protect women, including against gender-based violence by private actors; investigate the crime; punish the perpetrator; and provide compensation. Although the State party argues that the author has not brought any claim of discrimination in the domestic court, the Committee noted that the author filed a second action on 14 March 1996 before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, subsequently augmented with an amended statement of claim dated 9 July 1998, which included the following claims of sex-based discrimination: that her partner was cruel, abusive, extremely dominant, intimidating and physically aggressive; that, as a result, she had to seek protection in a women’s shelter and find alternative accommodation for fear of physical harm, serious injury or death; and that she was evicted from the property and land, and caused to suffer financial and emotional hardship. Accordingly, the Committee considered that the author’s allegations, relating to articles 1, 2, paragraphs (d) and (e), 14, paragraph 2 (h), 15, paragraph 4 and 16, paragraph 1 (h), of the Convention had been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility under the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee found that since the author’s claim had not been barred by limitation in any of the proceedings before the domestic courts after ratification of the Protocol, and since the author’s claim had already been pending before the courts at the time of ratification and entry into force of the Protocol, her claim constituted a pending claim. The Committee was of the view that the subject matter and discriminatory effect of the alleged violation did not cease to exist, as the claim was a pending continuing claim not barred by limitation. The Committee considered the facts that are the subject of the communication to be of a continuous nature, and found that admissibility ratione temporis is thereby justified, and declared the communication admissible under article 4, paragraph 2 (e), of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee declared the communication admissible on 15 October 2010, with one dissenting opinion.6 Comments from the State party on the merits 8.1 On 25 May 2011, the State party submitted that the author’s communication alleges that the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories contravened articles 1, 2, paragraphs (d) and (e), 14 paragraph 2 (h), 15 and 16, paragraph 1(h), of the Convention by virtue of the acts or omissions of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Rae-Edzo Housing Authority. The State party clarifies that the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Rae -Edzo Housing 5 6 8 Ms. Yoko Hayashi submitted a dissenting opinion that the communication should be declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. See footnote 5 above.