CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations dated 21 November 2018, the State party complements the factual background of the communication and provides extensive information on the numerous national reports and inquiries that have been issued or conducted to examine the subject of undercover policing since 2010. These inquiry procedures include the following: (a) a review in 2012 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which examined and issued recommendations relating to national police units that provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest; (b) Operation Herne, which began in 2011 and is ongoing, an independent review established by the Metropolitan Police Service of the use of undercover police officers by the former Special Demonstration Squad, following which the former undercover officer with whom D.L. and T.B. had sexual relationships was dismissed from the police for gross misconduct; and (c) the Undercover Policing Inquiry, which began in 2015 and is ongoing, and is described in further detail below. The State party also declares that it makes no admissions as to the accuracy of any of the alleged facts, including the alleged identity of the alleged undercover police officers, in the communication and the supporting documentation. 4.2 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible because all seven authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies. First, none of the authors alleged sex- or gender-based discrimination as a matter of fact, in either their tort -based claims or their claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. They clearly could have done so. Thus, the national bodies had no opportunity to examine this claim. The authors’ apparent assertion that they raised the issue of discrimination before national bodies is incorrect. 4.3 Specifically, the complaint brought by A.J. and S.B. raised, on the one hand, tort-based common law claims of deceit, misfeasance in public office, assault/battery and negligence and, on the other hand, a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 invoking articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to the prohibition of torture and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively. The complaint brought by D.L., T.B., R.B., H.S. and B.H. raised tort based common law claims of deceit, misfeasance in public office, assault/battery and negligence. It did not include any claim under the Act because the relationships of the women did not start or continue after October 2000, when the Act entered into force. The fact that each of the authors is a woman and the fact that each of them was involved in a sexual relationship with an undercover officer are plainly insufficient to constitute an allegation of sex- or gender-based discrimination. 4.4 Second, A.J. and S.B. did not allege sex- or gender-based discrimination as a matter of law in their national claim. They could have done so under section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, according to which “it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”. In their national claim, A.J. and S.B. expressly relied on certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, but not on article 14 of the Convention, which relates to non-discrimination. All seven authors were represented at all material times by solicitors and barristers. The only reasonable deduction is that they made a deliberate decision not to pursue a claim of sex- or gender-based discrimination. 4.5 Third, all of the authors settled their civil claims, as reflected in court orders dated 19 November 2015. On 19 November 2015, A.J. and S.B. agreed not to pursue their claims further under the Human Rights Act; it is stated in the settlement agreement that it was a “full and final settlement of their claims against the defendant in claim No. HQ11X03952 and the [Investigatory Powers Tribunal] proceedings brought by the [authors] under the [Human Rights Act] ”. On the same date, the five remaining authors reached a separate settlement, in the agreement to which it is stated 19-22187 7/15