CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 7.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas have not filed criminal complaints, despite having the opportunity to do so, and have not, therefore, been included in investigation No. 14-2016. On that point, the authors maintain that the State party has had access to all the necessary information on their forced sterilization and has been given the opportunity to remedy it, and that the fact that Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas have not filed a complaint has not prevented the State party from becoming aware of the violations. In addition, the authors allege that the forced sterilizations carried out between 1996 and 2001 in the State party constitute crimes against humanity and that, as such, there is an ex officio obligation on the part of the State party to investigate. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is to g ive the State party the opportunity to fulfil its duty to protect and uphold the rights enshrined in the Convention. 30 The Committee notes that, if they had filed a complaint, Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas would have been included in investigation No. 14-2016 as alleged victims, as indicated by the State party. Having concluded that investigation No. 14-2016 has been unreasonably prolonged (see para. 7.5 above) and that insufficient progress has been made in that investigation, the Committee considers that, if they had filed a complaint, the effectiveness of the remedy and the results of the investigation for Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas would be the sa me as for María Elena Carbajal, Florentina Loayza and Rosa Loarte. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which “mere doubts about the effectiveness of the remedies do not absolve an individual from exhausting domestic remedies”. 31 The Committee considers that, in this case, it is certain that the existing remedies have been unduly prolonged and therefore ineffective, and concludes that Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas would be absolved from exhausting those remedies. Consequently, the Committee finds that article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication submitted on behalf of Gloria Basilio and Elena Rojas. 7.7 The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the communication is inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation on the grounds that the facts presented in the communication do not entail sex-based discrimination because the Programme on Reproductive Health and Family Planning was aimed at the general public. Moreover, the Committee takes note of the fact that the lack of investigation and adequate reparations for victims of forced sterilization are acts of discrimination against women. The Committee notes that at least 314,000 women (93 per cent of the victims), including the authors, and 24,000 men, most of whom were Indigenous, illiterate and/or from poor or rural areas, were sterilized as part of a family planning policy under which mass surgical contraception was prioritized with the intention of lowering the birth rate and reducing poverty levels. The Committee considers that its determination regarding whether the forced sterilizations constituted discrimination on the basis of sex, socioeconomic conditions or ethnic group is directly related to the merits of the communication and thus it finds that it is competent to examine the issue. 32 7.8 The Committee notes that the facts and the authors’ other allegations concerning lack of access to healthcare services, family planning services in rural areas and guarantees for the enjoyment of rights and freedoms under equal conditions are ancillary to the lack of prompt and thorough investigation and the lack of full and adequate reparations. Accordingly, in the absence of any other issue relating to the __________________ 30 31 32 14/19 E.L.A. v. France (CED/C/19/D/3/2019), para. 6.6, and Human Rights Committee, Hidalgo Rea and Rivera Hidalgo v. Mexico (CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018), para. 8.4. See, a contrario sensu, J.D. et al. v. Czech Republic (CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016), para. 8.3, and Zhen Zheng v. the Netherlands (CEDAW/C/42/D/15/2007), para. 7.3. N.A.E. v. Spain (CEDAW/C/82/D/149/2019), para. 14.4. 24-19966