CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 not preclude the Committee’s consideration of the case under article 4 (2) (e) of the Optional Protocol, given that the failure to ensure compensation for victims of forced sterilization is an ongoing violation that continues to this day. Complaint 3.1 The authors submit that they are victims of an ongoing breach of article 2 (b) and (e) of the Convention, read in conjunction with articles 5, 10 (h), 12 and 16 (1) (e) of the Convention. At the time of their sterilization, four issues emerged as the most significant characteristics of this practice: absence of free will, insufficient patient information, lack of formal requirements and complete absence of consent. Often, the victim formally agreed to be sterilized, but the consent was invalid owing to the pressure from the welfare and medical professionals, which resulted in the absence of free expression of will. Social workers often secured the consent for sterilization by threatening to take children into State care or deny social benefits. Such tactics were used specifically against Roma women. The sterilization monetary benefit placed pressure on the poorest in society. Women were often asked for consent just before the operation, when they were under the influence of painkillers and in extreme pain and anxiety. 3.2 The authors submit that article 2 (b) of the Convention “contains the obligation of States parties to ensure that legislation prohibiting discrimination and promoting equality of women and men provides appropriate remedies for women who are subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention”.7 Under article 2 (e), States are required to take measures that “ensure that women are able to make complaints about violations of their rights under the Convention and have access to effective remedies”.8 The Committee has emphasized that the “provision of remedies requires the ability of women to receive from justice systems viable protection and meaningful redress for any harm that they may suffer”.9 3.3 The authors maintain that they do not have access to an appropriate remedy for forced sterilization because no such remedy exists under Czech law. The State party has not adopted appropriate measures to prohibit discrimination against women a nd has not taken all measures to eliminate such discrimination. Because forced sterilization amounts to discrimination prohibited by articles 5, 10 (h), 12 and 16 (1) (e) of the Convention, 10 the requirement to provide a remedy under article 2 (b) and (e) is engaged in this case. 3.4 The authors maintain that it is not necessary for the Committee to find underlying violations of the above articles resulting from the sterilization in order to find violations of article 2 (b) and (e). In accordance with well-developed principles of international human rights law on the interpretation of provisions guaranteeing effective remedies, the authors submit that all they need to show in order to engage article 2 (b) and (e) of the Convention is that they had an arguable claim that they were victims of discriminatory treatment in breach of other provisions of the Convention. 11 3.5 The authors submit that it is beyond dispute that they have an arguable claim that they suffered breaches of the Convention because they were fo rcibly sterilized. __________________ 7 8 9 10 11 19-15443 General recommendation No. 28 (2010) on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, para. 32. Ibid., para. 36. General recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice, para. 14 (e). A.S. v. Hungary (CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004). The “arguable claim” standard applies for similar arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights, Silver and Others v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, para. 113 (a). 5/18