CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 Their cases disclose stereotypes about Roma women, engaging article 5 12 of the Convention: they were targeted because they had large families, which is a common stereotype about the Roma that is impossible to separate from any discussion about forced sterilization. The purpose of this State practice is “to control the highly unhealthy Roma population through family planning and contraception”.13 In two of the six cases, the Ombudsperson found violations of their rights. All authors suffered a well-known pattern of forced sterilization of Roma women that has been taking place for decades. The State party has settled similar cases 14 in the European Court of Human Rights. In its concluding observations of 2006 and 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/3 and CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5), the Committee called upon the State party to “financially compensate the victims of coercive or non-consensual sterilizations performed on, in particular Roma women and women with mental disabilities”, and noted with concern that “most of the compensation claims brought by victims of forced sterilizations were dismissed because of the courts’ interpretation that the statute of limitations bars such claims after three years from the time of injury rather than the time of discovery of the real significance and all consequences of the sterilization”. 3.6 The failure to adopt legislation ensuring that victims of forced sterilization are not subject to the ordinary statute of limitations deprives the authors of an effective remedy contrary to article 2 (b) and (e) of the Convention. The Committee has found that victims of forced sterilization are entitled to “appropriate compensation … commensurate with the gravity of the violation of … [their] rights”.15 Imposing on Roma women victims of forced sterilization the same statute of limitations that applies to any civil claim to secure compensation does not take into accoun t their particular situation and amounts to intersectional discrimination that deprives them of an effective remedy. The difficulty of gaining access to justice is compounded by the psychological impact of forced sterilization, accompanied by feelings of inferiority, shame and stigma, which leads to a reluctance to challenge authority and draw attention to their situation. Expecting them to do so in the same time frame that applies to all citizens amounts to a failure to adopt legislation designed to combat discrimination against women. 3.7 The existence of effective remedies and the requirement to exhaust such remedies are closely linked: when there is no effective remedy for a violation, there is no need to exhaust remedies before lodging a petition. The issue of exhaustion is tied to the issue of whether there is a substantive violation of article 2. 3.8 A victim of forced sterilization could in theory seek a remedy through criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code and might, theoretically, secure compensation through such proceedings. According to the Criminal Code, forced sterilization can constitute the crime of “attack against humanity” or a crime of serious damage to health from negligence. The Code imposes stricter sanctions on perpetrators who breach a duty arising from their employment or profession (doctors, in cases of forced sterilization). The police dealt with some cases, but criminal proceedings were discontinued, making them ineffective. The Ombudsperson investigated and collected 87 cases. In his 2005 report, he stressed that “if criminal investigative bodies conclude that no criminal offence has been perpetrated, it does __________________ 12 13 14 15 6/18 CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1, para. 42. Otakar Motejl, Final Statement of the Public Defender of Rights in the Matter of Sterilizations Performed in Contravention of the Law and Proposed Remedial Measures (2005). European Court of Human Rights, R.K. v. Czech Republic, application No. 7883/08, decision of 27 November 2012; Helena Ferenčíková v. Czech Republic, application No. 21826/10, decision of 30 August 2011; Červeňáková and Others v. Czech Republic, application No. 40226/98, decision of 29 July 2003. A.S. v. Hungary, para. 11.5.I. 19-15443