CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 insufficient to allow her to provide adequate accommodation for her and her children. The Committee also observes that the first offer made by the Housing Corporation did not take place until August 1996, three years after the author was evicted from her home. The Committee concludes that State party has failed to ensure that its agents provide effective legal protection by respecting the Agreement for Purchase and Sale, and failed to ensure that the new Assignment of Lease, on which the author’s name was not included, was declared null and void. 10.5 The Committee further observes that the author was forced to change lawyers numerous times due to the pressures of settling for monetary compensation instead of the restitution of the property; and that the author suffered severe prejudice in relation both to her domestic violence complaint and her property-related lawsuits, by the action of the legal aid lawyers assigned to her case. The Committee refers to its general recommendation No. 28 and recalls that States parties have an obligation under article 2, paragraph (e), of the Convention to adopt measures that ensure women's equality with men, including measures that ensure that women have access to effective remedies (para. 36). Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the rights of the author under article 2, paragraphs (d) and (e), of the Convention have been violated. 10.6 As to the author’s allegation that the State party has contravened articles 14, paragraph 2 (h), and 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee notes that the information before the Committee does not show that the act of discrimination suffered by the author is related to her originating from a rural area or that she was prevented from residing in another property in the community of Rae-Edzo, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a violation of articles 14, paragraph 2 (h), and 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.7 With respect to the author’s allegations in regard to article 16, paragraph 1 (h), of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the author has not pointed out any property laws or customs that discriminate against married or unmarried women; any discriminatory practices or laws that interfered with her ownership, acquisition, management, administration or enjoyment of the Rae-Edzo property in particular; or any discriminatory conduct on the part of the authorities in respect of the removal of her name from the Assignment of Lease for said property. The Committee, however, observes that even though the formal eligibility criteria did not require so, the author was advised by a Tenant Relations officer of the Rae-Edzo Housing Authority that her partner’s application for housing would be considered if the author’s name was added to the application. The Committee also observes that the author was a victim of domestic violence, a fact which was not contested by the State party; that her partner tried to stop her from working, thus limiting her ability to lead an independent economic life; and that she was evicted from her home while seeking protection from domestic violence in a battered women’s shelter. The Committee further observes that, according to the State party’s submission, both the author’s income and the income of her partner were taken into account in determining their eligibility under the Northern Territorial Rental Purchase Program, yet when her name was removed from the Assignment of Lease, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation did not take her contribution into consideration or inform her of the removal. These facts considered together indicate that the rights of the author under article 16, paragraph 1 (h), of the Convention have been violated. 11. Acting under article 7, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and in the light of all the above considerations, the Committee is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations and has thereby violated the rights of the author under articles 2, paragraphs (d) and (e), and 16, paragraph 1 (h), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, and makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author of the communication 17