CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 that it represented a “full and final settlement of their claims against the Defendant in Claim No. HQ12X02912”. The seven authors received substantial compensation, the amounts of which are confidential. In addition, all seven authors received payment for legal costs, as well as a public apology, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements. The settlement means that they either failed to exhaust domestic remedies or that they lacked victim status. The authors claim “that they had no choice” but to accept the settlement offers made by the defendant because of the “prohibitive level of the costs risks that [they] would be exposed to if they continued the case ”. They also acknowledge, however, that their insurance policy required them to accept only a “reasonable” offer by a defendant. It may be inferred that the authors were advised, by their solicitors and barristers, that the defendant’s offers to settle were “reasonable”. They obviously had a choice and were able to reject unreasonable offers. Therefo re, the authors accepted the settlement offers because they were reasonable, rather than because they had “no choice”. That this is so is apparent from the fact that a third claimant, who was a party to the civil claim brought by A.J. and S.B., and is not an author of the communication, chose not to settle her claim at the same time. 4.6 The public apology issued to the authors included the following remarks: The Metropolitan Police has recently settled seven claims arising out of the totally unacceptable behaviour of a number of undercover police officers. … It has become apparent that some officers … entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong. I acknowledge that these relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma. I unreservedly apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. … I entirely agree that it was a gross violation [of privacy] and also accept tha t it may well have reflected attitudes towards women that should have no part in the culture of the Metropolitan Police. … One of the concerns which the women strongly expressed was that they wished to ensure that such relationships would not happen in future. … These matters are already the subject of several investigations including a criminal and misconduct inquiry called Operation Herne; undercover policing is also now subject to a judge-led Public Inquiry which commenced on 28 July 2015. Even before those bodies report, I can state that sexual relationships between undercover police officers and members of the public should not happen. … [It] would never be authorized in advance nor indeed used as a tactic of a deployment. If an officer did have a sexual relationship despite this (for example if it was a matter of life or death) then he would be required to report this in order that the circumstances could be investigated for potential criminality and/or misconduct. I can say as a very senior officer of the Metropolitan Police Service that I and the Metropolitan Police Service are committed to ensuring that this policy is followed by every officer who is deployed in an undercover role. Finally, the Metropolitan Police recognise that these cases demonstrate that there have been failures of supervision and management. … We accept that appropriate oversight was lacking. 2 __________________ 2 8/15 The apology also contains the following remarks: “None of the women with whom the officers had a relationship brought it on themselves. They were deceived pure and simple. … It is apparent that some officers may have preyed on the women’s good nature and had manipulated their emotions to a gratuitous extent. This was distressing to hear about and must have been very hard to bear. Fourth, I recognise that these relationships, the subsequent trauma and the secrecy around them left these women at risk of further abuse and deception by these officers after the deployment had ended. … It is of particular concern that abuses were not prevented by the introduction of more stringent supervisory arrangements made by and pursuant to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Metropolitan Police recognizes that this should never happen again and the necessary steps must be taken to ensure that it does not.” 19-22187