CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 male police officers engaged in a form of coercion that amounted to gender-based discrimination. 3.3 Furthermore, the discriminatory practice and policy had a number of specific aspects that constitute additional violations of the Convention. In violation of article 2 (d) of the Convention, the State party took no steps to prevent the police officers ’ conduct at the time and has not subsequently criminalized that type of conduct; it has not instituted criminal or even disciplinary sanctions against those responsible for committing the abuses. 3.4 In violation of article 2 (a)–(c) and (f) of the Convention, the State party failed to adopt legislative measures to prevent police officers from having sexual relations with women when working undercover. The Court of Appeal has ruled that legislation regulating the conduct of covert human intelligence sources cannot be construed so as to prevent or in any way outlaw sexual relationships. The Crown Prosecution Service has refused to take action against the officers or their supervisors involved. The decision not to prosecute any of the officers was taken despite the fact that several cases involving identity deception vitiating consent have successfully been prosecuted in circumstances in which women deceived other women as to their real gender in sexual relations with other women. This difference in approach indicates that the decision not to prosecute the officers was discriminatory. The refusal to prosecute also indicates that the State party is failing to meet its positive obligation to enforce sanctions on those committing abuses and to desist from the practice, despite having knowledge of the pain and suffering that the practice is causing. 3.5 In violation of article 3 of the Convention, the State party has failed to take appropriate measures to guarantee the exercise by women of fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with men, including the freedom of expression and assembly, the right to freely participate in politics and civil society, the right to enter into familial relationships, the right to exercise choice over reproduction and the right to form sexual relations. In the absence of such safeguards, women are discouraged from exercising their right to freedom of expression and assembly on an equal basis with men. Women are also inhibited in their ability and freedom to enter into sexual and family relations and to enjoy privacy. As such, the fear of being deceived into an intimate relationship with an undercover officer inhibits the exercise of a range of the authors’ fundamental freedoms, including the right to freely participate in politics and civil society, the right to enter into familial relationships, the right to exercise choice over reproduction and the right to form sexual relations. 3.6 In violation of article 5 (a) of the Convention, the authors were subjected to gender stereotyping by the undercover police officers who targeted them. The pretence of intimacy, both emotional and sexual, was carried out with behaviour calculated to engage the women’s attentions and commitment. In four of the seven cases, the deceit was extended through the behaviour undertaken to end the purported relationship, with elaborate stories about personal crises and a pretence of moving to other countries. These stories were constructed to play on the authors ’ sympathies. The authors went to great lengths to find the officers to ensure their well-being, even travelling long distances at great cost to themselves. The policy and practice disempowered the authors because it exploited the social context of male -female sexual and familial relations and the women’s emotional and sexual responses within that context. 3.7 In violation of article 5 (b) of the Convention, D.L. was deceived into conceiving and giving birth to children. The undercover officer in her case sought to recommence his relationship with her, possibly under the instruction or exp ress authority of his police superiors because she was on the cusp of discovering the existence of the Special Demonstration Squad. This resulted in her conceiving their 19-22187 5/15