CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 representatives about the fairness of the agreement’s terms, an inequality of arms or undue pressure to agree to the proposed terms. The Committee also notes that one of the parties to the claim filed by A.J. and S.B., who is not a party to the authors ’ communication, chose not to settle her claims at the same time. The Committee further considers, taking into account the amounts of the compensation awards, the payment of the authors’ legal costs and the text of the public apology, that the terms of the settlement agreement are not in and of themselves patently unfair towards the authors. In the light of the information made available to it, the Committee is unable to conclude that the settlement agreement was manifestly inequitable or was the result of undue pressure or coercion owing to onerous terms, so as to vitiate the authors ’ waiver to submit a communication to the Committee concerning the same matter. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the authors lost their victim status when they concluded the settlement in full and final satisfaction of their claims at the national level. The Committee therefore concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9 7. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) authors. The present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the __________________ 9 19-22187 In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine other grounds of inadmissibility. 15/15