CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 action to remedy the situation when it was brought to its attention is a violation of article 2, paragraph (e), of the Convention. 3.3 She further claims that the State party has contravened article 14, paragraph 2(h), of the Convention by failing to ensure that its agents take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas such as Rae-Edzo, in particular taking into account her situation. She alleges that the State party failed to ensure that its agents apply its policies and procedures with regard to the allocation of housing and the provision of adequate living conditions fairly and equally for men and women. 3.4 She submits that the State party has contravened article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention as it failed to ensure that its agents recognize her equal rights to conclude a legal contract, in particular a leasehold, independently of her partner, and to ad minister property independently and equally in all stages and procedures in court and before the housing corporations. 3.5 She also submits that the State party has contravened article 15, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention as it failed to ensure that its agents respect the Agreement for Purchase and Sale, failed to rectify the fraudulent act of her partner and failed to ensure that the new Assignment of Lease, on which the author’s name was not included, was declared null and void. 3.6 She further submits that the State party has contravened article 16, paragraph 1(h), of the Convention as it failed to ensure that its agents afford the same rights to her in comparison to her partner’s rights in respect of ownership, acquisition, management, administration and enjoyment of the property. State party’s submission on admissibility 4.1 On 6 January 2009, the State party submitted 4 that it considers the ―relevant fact‖ on which all of the author’s allegations are based to be the alleged removal of the author’s name from the Assignment of Lease in the early 1990s. 4.2 The State party challenges the admissibility of the communication on three grounds: (i) that the facts that form the subject matter of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol of the Convention; (ii) that the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies; and (iii) that the communication is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated. 4.3 The State party submits that the ―relevant fact‖ on which the communication is based, that is, the removal of the author’s name from the Assignment of Lease, occurred between 1992 and 1993, well before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Canada on 18 January 2003; and action in that respect was completed at that time. Accordingly, the State party submits that the whole communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under article 4, paragraph 2 (e), of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 The State party notes that the substance of the present communication has never been brought before the domestic authorities, therefore the communication should be declared inadmissible on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. While acknowledging that the author initiated some domestic legal proceedings, the State party submits that the author did not allege any form of discrimination on the part of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, or its agents. The 4 6 The State party makes this submission on behalf of the respondents identified in the author’s communication, namely, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Rae-Edzo Housing Authority.