CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee is to decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the incidents occurred prior to the entry into force of the Protocol. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ arguments that, although the State party has, since 2003, acknowledged that the forced sterilizations performed between 1996 and 2001 represented grave violations, and despite its launch of several criminal investigations since the Protocol entered into force, the investigations pertaining to the forced sterilization of the authors remain unresolved and the alleged victims have yet to r eceive full reparations. The Committee notes that both the launch of the criminal investigations into the forced sterilization of the authors and their entry in the Registry of Victims of Forced Sterilization occurred after the Protocol entered into force and that the authors’ allegations primarily concern the lack of investigation and reparations, an issue that remained unresolved after the Optional Protocol entered into force. The alleged failure of the State party to fully acknowledge its responsibility and fulfil its obligations to provide the authors with just and adequate reparations therefore occurred after the State party’s recognition of the Committee’s jurisdiction under the Optional Protocol. 20 Consequently, the Committee declares the communication admissible ratione temporis under article 4, paragraph 2 (e), of the Optional Protocol. 21 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s comments regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee recalls that, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted or that the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effectiv e relief. 22 The Committee notes that both parties maintain that the present case concerns not the sterilization itself, but the authors’ right to an efficient investigation and adequate reparations. The Committee must also satisfy itself that the remedies were available to the authors. 23 The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that the alleged lack of judicial impartiality at the time of the events is based on general observations and subjective assessments; that the authors could have filed civil and administrative suits, in addition to a criminal complaint and amparo proceedings on the grounds of discrimination, which are the appropriate remedies for seeking redress; and that there is no evidence establishing that there were real, tangible and verifiable circumstances that hindered the authors’ access to the domestic remedies. 7.4 The Committee also takes note of the authors’ claim that, since they were not properly informed about the type of procedure performed on them, at first they were not fully aware that they had been forcibly sterilized or that such sterilization was a crime. The Committee takes note of the fact that legal remedies are not always truly available to alleged victims, either de jure or de facto. 24 On that point, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with its general recommendation No. 39 (2022), __________________ 20 21 22 23 24 12/19 S.H. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017), para. 7.6. A contrario sensu, Cristina Muñoz-Vargas y Sainz de Vicuña v. Spain (CEDAW/C/39/D/7/2005), para. 11.5. J.D. et al. v. Czech Republic (CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016), para. 8.2; 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. A.S. v. Hungary (CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004), para. 10.3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion 11/90, para. 17. 24-19966