CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 who are complaining about the lack of a remedy before the domestic courts to have brought a case that they claim was bound to fail. Once the State party introduces an appropriate remedy, the authorities will have the opportunity to test the evidence and make a determination in the cases of the authors. The scant evidence provided by the authors confirms that any civil claim they might bring, in which they would bear the burden of proof, is destined to fail. 5.2 It is incompatible with the Convention to expect vulnerable victims such as members of oppressed ethnic minorities to make a forced sterilization claim using a generic remedy with a three-year statute of limitations or at a time when the case law concerning such claims was inconsistent. The jurisprudence of the courts co nfirms that the authors stand no chance of a successful compensation claim. 5.3 Multiple national institutions and international bodies recognize the need for specific remedies for victims of forced sterilization. The State party has a long history of forced sterilization of Roma women and of missing evidence concerning such sterilizations. The authors insist that their claims are true and that they have provided all evidence available to them. 5.4 According to international human rights law, a woman bringing a complaint about a lack of effective remedies merely has to show that she has an “arguable claim” that she suffered the harm for which she is seeking a remedy. This is the consistent position of the European Court of Human Rights when applying article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 43 The State party’s standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”, is misleading, given that it applies to a different set of cases in which victims of ill-treatment request the Court to establish that the illtreatment violated their rights. The authors merely have to show that they have an arguable claim that they were victims of forced sterilization. The ongoing nature of the violation means that their rights continue to be violated, regardless of when the ir sterilizations occurred. The subject matter of the complaint of the authors is the right to an effective remedy for the grave violations they suffered because of their sterilization. Their right to a remedy continues until today. 44 5.5 The authors disagree that the delay in bringing their complaint amounts to an abuse of the right to present a communication. The idea of a compensation scheme for victims of forced sterilization has been subject to political, public and legislative debate for years. The process between 2009 and 2015 brought the issue into the open and empowered victims to seek justice. However, a draft bill calling for the establishment of an independent expert committee to review the individual claims of involuntary sterilization and to advise on appropriate remedies was rejected by the Government on 30 September 2015. The authors brought their complaint to the Committee after that process failed, within six months of the decision of the Government, which they believe is a reasonable amount of time. They recall that there is no time limit for the submission of complaints to the Committee. 5.6 When a State party has violated its obligation under international human rights law to put in place an effective remedy for a breach of human rights, t here is no obligation to have exhausted all other remedies, which would have been inadequate or ineffective. 45 The authors contest the assertion that they should have brought a civil claim once they became aware of the full consequences of their sterilizati on. The __________________ 43 44 45 19-15443 European Court of Human Rights, De Souza Ribeiro v. France, application No. 22689/07, judgment of 13 December 2012, para. 78. The Human Rights Committee, Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003), para. 6.3. Groupe d’Intérêt pour le Matronyme v. France (CEDAW/C/44/D/12/2007), para. 11.8. 13/18