CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 women to exercise their human rights or to have access to full reparation for violations suffered. 3.6 The authors allege that, in 2007 and 2014, the Committee reiterated its concern about the lack of investigation and prosecution, as well as the difficulties faced by women victims of forced sterilization in accessing relevant remedies. 13 Other international bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee and the Human Rights Council, have made similar recommendations. 3.7 The authors request: (a) compensation in the amount of $ 17,046 each for material and non-material damages; (b) the adoption of the measures necessary for the investigation of the events related to the authors’ forced sterilizations in order to punish those responsible under criminal law; (c) the provision of psycholo gical assistance to the authors and their family members as direct and indirect victims in the present communication; and (d) the establishment of a trust to pay for the primary, secondary, university and/or technical education of the authors’ children. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations of 20 September 2021 and 20 January 2022, the State party alleges that the events occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol and that the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (e) of the Protocol on the grounds of failure to show that domestic remedies have been exhausted and lack of substantiation. 4.2 The State party maintains that the authors’ allegations of lack of judicial impartiality are based on subjective assessments and that drawing general conclusions from specific cases does not demonstrate the ineffectiveness of a remedy. The State party clarifies that the violation of the constitution did not impede the administration of justice and affirms that the circumstances that could have affected the proper administration of justice at the national level did not affect any judicial proceedings initiated by the authors. The composition of the Constitutional Court was affected between May 1997 and November 2000, but the authors do not explain the extent to which that affected them. The State argues that there was no hijacking of the institutions in the service of the Executive Branch or generalized distrust of the justice system that would justify the failure of the authors to exhaust remedies. 4.3 The State party emphasizes that the authors could have filed domestic remedies such as a civil claim for compensation, an administrative complaint, a criminal complaint on the grounds of discrimination and sterilization or an amparo procedure on the grounds of discrimination. The State party argues that international responsibility can only be determined after the State has had the opportunity to establish, if necessary, the violation of a right and to make reparation, by its own means, for the damage caused; the State has had no such opportunity in the present communication, since the authors have not shown that they have filed any remedy. The State party adds that the authors are formally recognized as victims of forced sterilization through their inclusion in the Registry of Victims of Forced Sterilization but that they have not filed any complaint on the grounds of discrimination. 4.4 The State highlights that the cases of María Elena Carbajal Cepeda, Florentina Loayza Cárdenas and Rosa Loarte Sobrado are included in investigation No. 14-2016, adding that the investigation is complex and therefore remains open. Numerous proceedings have been conducted, and thousands of statements have been collected throughout the country. In addition, the State party argues that the investigations __________________ 13 8/19 Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Peru, 20 February 2007 (CEDAW/C/PER/CO/6), para. 20. 24-19966