CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 5.6 Moreover, the Undercover Policing Inquiry does not constitute an adequate domestic remedy because, inter alia: (a) the inquiry is unreasonably prolonged, and substantial portions of it are held in private with no access offered to the authors; (b) it is not certain that information or assurances of non-repetition to the authors as part of the inquiry will be provided; (c) it has been stated that the final report on the inquiry will be provided to the Secretary of State for the Home Department towards the end of 2023, thus constituting an unreasonable period in which to wait for a remedy; (d) it has not been guaranteed that the findings of the inquiry will be made public; and (e) the authors are extremely concerned by the lack of understanding by the Chair of the inquiry of issues relating to sex-based discrimination and have little confidence that issues of discrimination will be adequately addressed as part of the inquiry. The Chair admitted that he has never received any training in discrimination and stated in February 2018 that “experience of life tells [him]” that “officers who have reached a ripe old age who are still married to the same woman [are] less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs”. The relevance of this is that the Chair was more likely to believe an undercover officer who denied having sexual relations with women he spied on if he were married. 5.7 Furthermore, the harm suffered by the women was not purely economic. They wasted important years of their lives nurturing decepti ve relationships that provided no basis for future settled lives. Some of the authors considered or may have considered having children, but this did not happen owing to various excuses provided by the officers. The authors’ ability to trust has been damaged, thereby hampering their formation of new relationships. Discovery and assurances of non -repetition are therefore as important, if not more important, to the authors than financial compensation. 5.8 The authors reiterate that they have victim status be cause they have not been afforded an effective remedy. The communication is not inadmissible ratione temporis because the violations claimed are not limited to the original deception but are instead continuing violations owing to the lack of an effective r emedy. While some of the violations date from before December 2004, the failure to provide an effective remedy is an ongoing breach of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to examine the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. Pursuant to rule 72 (4), it is to do so before considering the merits of the communication. 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the matter has not already been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 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 effective relief. 6 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all available domestic remedies and must have raised in substance at the national level the claim before the Committee, so as to provide the national authorities and/or __________________ 6 19-22187 See 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. 13/15