CEDAW/C/77/D/143/2019 and non-pecuniary damages resulting from the inability to enjoy their rights and the stress, anxiety, fear and humiliation that they have suffered. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 72 (4), it is to do so before considering the merits of the communication. 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls that, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded from considering a communication unless it has ascertained tha t all available domestic remedies have been exhausted or that the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. 10 In that connection, the Committee notes the authors’ contention that they have exhausted all available effective and relevant domestic remedies. While considering that legal condition to be an essential requirement for the admissibility of a communication, it also notes that the State party has not brought any argument to the contrary and has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on any grounds. The Committee therefore considers that, in the particular context of the authors’ case of denied access to health care, the available domestic remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, in the present case, it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 6.4 Having found no impediment to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the authors and by the State party, as p rovided for in article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes that the authors claim that they have suffered intersecting discrimination based on both their gender and ethnicity, in violation of article 2 (a), (c) and (e) of the Convention. It takes note of their contention that the State party failed to: (a) ensure the practical realization of the principle of non -discrimination as concerns access to and provision of gynaecological services; (b) ensure through a competent national tribunal the effective protection of the authors against any act of discrimination; and (c) take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against the authors by any person, organization or enterprise. It also notes their assertion that the State party’s failure has a particularly disproportionate and discriminatory effect on Roma women and girls. 7.3 The Committee first recalls that discrimination against women based on sex and gender is inextricably linked with other factors that affect women, such as race, ethnicity, religion or belief, health, status, age, class, caste, sexual orientation and gender identity, that discrimination based on sex or gender may affect women belonging to such groups to a different degree or in different ways to men and that __________________ 10 20-16465 E.S. and S.C. v. United Republic of Tanzania (CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013), para. 6.3; and L.R. v. Republic of Moldova (CEDAW/C/66/D/58/2013), para. 12.2. 7/10