CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 4.7 Fourth, the Undercover Policing Inquiry is one of the domestic remedies available to the authors in relation to the possibility of obtai ning further information and recommendations. A strategic review of the inquiry was published in May 2018; the Committee is invited to read the document in full. 3 The State party provides extensive information concerning the nature of the inquiry, which wa s established in March 2015. The final report on the inquiry is expected to be issued in 2023. The Chair of the inquiry is a retired judge of the High Court of Justice. The Chair is assisted by a team of around 50 people, including lawyers and civil servan ts. The scope of the inquiry includes an examination of “the motivation for, and the scope of, undercover police operations in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general”. Thus, the inquiry procedure is sufficiently broad to cover the investigation of issues of discrimination and the specific violations against women. It is irrelevant whether the inquiry procedure is regarded for these purposes as a judicial or administrative remedy. What is relevant is that it is an independent inquiry aimed at investigating a range of issues, including those raised by the authors, such as whether and for what purpose, extent and effect undercover police operations have targeted political and social justice campaigners. The list of is sues that may be considered as part of the inquiry with respect to the Special Demonstration Squad expressly includes consideration of the relationships formed by undercover officers during their deployment. The authors request disclosure of information, a nd systems have been established as part of the inquiry to ensure that all reasonably practical steps are taken to preserve potentially relevant documents and avoid the destruction of necessary materials. There is no blanket policy in relation to applications for orders to restrict disclosure of evidence or documents. The policy of “neither confirm nor deny” is not, in and of itself, a reason to request restriction of disclosure. A considerable amount of material is likely to be published, which, because of its security classification, would otherwise not have been exposed to public scrutiny. By the end of March 2018, over £10 million had been spent on the inquiry. As part of the inquiry, more than 560 requests for evidence have been issued to around 59 organizations, more than 460 witness statements have been received and over 1 million pages of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service alone have been provided. By May 2018, there were 207 core participants and 25 legal representatives, 19 of which are funded through the inquiry. The authors have non-State core participant status in the inquiry. They have chosen to lodge their communication before being provided with information, as part of the inquiry process, and before factual findings and recommendations have been made under the inquiry about how undercover policing should be conducted in future. They have therefore failed to exhaust that domestic remedy, and their criticisms of the inquiry are therefore either irrelevant or unmeritorious. 4.8 The State party rejects the remainder of the authors’ assertions with regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, on various grounds. First, while the authors claim that they do not know the extent of the violation to which they were subjected and did not receive a court ruling on the violation of their rights, that is because they chose to settle their civil claims against the Metropolitan Police Service and chose the terms on which to settle. They cannot validly complain about a lack of effective redress because they chose to accept reasonable offers of settlement that included payment of damages, payment of legal costs and a public apology. 4.9 Furthermore, the authors have chosen to submit their communication while the Undercover Policing Inquiry is ongoing. The inquiry is a relevant domestic remedy in that regard, because it is a mechanism through which the authors may obtain information and/or documents; thus, the authors should have exhausted it before submitting their communication. The authors’ criticisms of the inquiry are __________________ 3 19-22187 See www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180510-strategic_review.pdf. 9/15