CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 discriminated against by her attorneys and the legal aid service was apparently in the communication. Unlike the Committee, I therefore believe that the author received legal assistance on a non-discriminatory basis. I do not rule out the possibility that the quality of those legal services may not have been entirely satisfactory. However, according to the existing jurisprudence, litigants (unfortunately for them) bear the burden of the errors committed by their attorneys.19 3.8 I share the Committee’s conclusion, as stated in paragraph 10.6 in fine of its Views, that there was no violation of article 14, paragraph 2 (h), or of article 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention. Contrary to the opinion set forth by the Committee in paragraph 10.7 of its Views, I do not believe that the State party is guilty of discrimination under the terms of article 16, paragraph 1 (h), of the Convention. The author does seem to have been the victim of domestic violence, and it is quite possible that her ability to engage in gainful employment was limited by her partner, but at the time of the event that gave rise to the communication, namely, the removal of her name from the Assignment of Lease, no Canadian authority had been informed of that situation. As indicated above in the discussion of paragraphs 10.2 to 10.4, it was not until the first suit was filed, in which W.S. was the sole respondent, that, for the first time, a judicial authority was informed that the author claimed to be the victim of domestic violence. As the author did not pursue either that legal action or the second such action, the State party cannot be accused of having failed to exercise due diligence in the case in question or in regard to women victims of violence in general. 3.9 The fact that the incomes of both partners were taken into consideration at the time that the contract was drawn up cannot, in my view, be interpreted as a violation of the author’s rights under article 16, paragraph 1 (h), either. If the former partner’s income had not been taken into account, the author might very probably have been unable to buy Parcel No. 138 because she would not have had the required level of income. This is confirmed by the author’s statement in the communication to the effect that she later applied to purchase a home on two occasions but was denied because her income was too low. Furthermore, the author was not forced to add her former partner’s name to the application but was simply told that, if she did, her application might be approved. It appears to have been common knowledge that the two of them lived together, and the provision of such information would therefore not constitute a violation of the author’s rights under article 16, paragraph 1 (h). The failure of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation to inform the author that her name had been removed from the contract cannot be regarded as constituting discrimination either. Inasmuch as W.S. quite probably used fraudulent means to have the author’s name removed from the contract, it is quite conceivable that he would have done everything he could in order to prevent her from learning of that fact. Alternatively, if the failure to notify the author were not the result of collusion on the part of one or more employees of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, but rather the result of an error or oversight, it would not necessarily constitute discrimination on the basis of sex either. In other words, a fraudulent act or an error which had what were certainly dramatic consequences for the author do not necessarily constitute acts of discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of article 16, paragraph 1 (h). 4. In view of the foregoing, I believe that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and that, if considered on the merits, should be rejected on the ground that the author has failed to advance evidence to support her allegations. (Signed) Patricia Schulz 19 24 Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1059/2002, Carvallo Villar v. Spain.