CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 State party ignores the social marginalization, feelings of humiliation and fear that resulted in their initial reluctance to talk about their situation. 5.7 The State party further ignores the human rights law principle that the strict interpretation of domestic law on statutes of limitations can impede the rights of vulnerable victims. 46 The person bringing the claim bears the burden of proof. Women sterilized long ago do not have evidence because it was “lost” by the medical facilities. The authors have no hope of succeeding in any civil claim because they cannot produce the kind of evidence a civil court expects from a plaintiff. 5.8 The authors faced several obstacles to accessing justice. Sterilizations were part of a systemic practice of population control, supported by the State and medical authorities. With no consensus regarding the unlawfulness of such practices, it was hardly imaginable to seek justice before the authorities. The State party failed to reach out by providing information on remedies that were physically, economically, socially and culturally accessible. It was only when the authorities began to envisage a remedy that the authors gained confidence that they would secure justice. When that process failed, they proceeded with their complaint. 5.9 Doctors or medical establishments should be liable for some of the sterilizations. However, the State party has the responsibility to introduce and implement a remedy that can establish liability and compensation. In the case of A.S. v. Hungary, the Committee found that Hungary was responsible for monitoring and ensuring sanctions in cases of forced sterilizations in public and private hospitals. 5.10 Some women sterilized in the 2000s were able to secure compensation under the civil law. This has no bearing on the situation of women who were sterilized years earlier and were unable to avail themselves of that legal procedure. The insistence by the State party that forms of free legal advice were available is of no help; in the absence of any outreach to victims of forced sterilization, combined with their low social position, such facilities were of no use to them. The idea that the authors should first have appeared before a civil court within three years of being sterilized, without the assistance of a lawyer, so that they could have a lawyer appointed, completely ignores the reality of their situation. The State party is aware of the shortcomings of the legal aid system; a proposal for a new act on legal aid was introduced in March 2016. 5.11 States parties must provide accessible remedies. The State party acknowledged that jurisprudence was inconsistent, leaving the authors with a “chance” of securing compensation. While some victims of sterilization might have been able to secure compensation before 2008, it would by no means have been clear to the authors that that was an appropriate remedy. 5.12 The “good morals”/“bonnes moeurs” principle is of no use to the authors in overcoming the statute of limitations. This discretionary exception to the rules imposes no substantive obligations on the courts; it is merely a procedural requirement when considering the granting of an exception. The courts have no practice in using the “good morals”/“bonnes moeurs” provision to overcome obstacles such as those faced by the authors. The two cases cited by the State party were different, given that they were filed during the period (between 2003 and 2008) when the courts were granting monetary compensation to some victims of forced sterilization despite the fact that the three-year limit had passed. By the time the cases of the authors would have reached the Supreme Court, the case law had changed and the statute of limitations blocked compensation claims. __________________ 46 14/18 See https://theglobalfund.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/External. 19-15443