CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible because the violations referred to the Committee therein were not alleged during the domestic proceedings, the author recalls that the administrative procedure for holding the public administration accountable requires only that the facts that should give rise to responsibility be recounted; there is no need to invoke specific rights related to articles of laws or international treaties. 22 The author emphasizes, however, that in both the administrative claim and the subsequent appeals she expressly invoked the violation of the rights to physical and psychological integrity and personal and family privacy and to receive information and decid e freely, and that, accordingly, the authorities could and should have expressed an opinion on the matter and had the opportunity to repair the damage. 5.4 The author observes that the State party does not refer to the merits of the communication, but expresses opposition to the reparations requested by her. In this regard, the author highlights that making transformative reparations that offer a guarantee of non-repetition is crucial, as established in the United Nations basic principles and guidelines that make up the international corpus juris on reparations. The author also mentions the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the notion of gender-based reparations with transformative potential and ordered the State to take steps to improve access to justice, to standardize protocols for combating violence against women, to organize search programmes with a view to locating missing women, to train officials on gender issues, and to offer medical and psychological rehabilitation programmes for victims’ families. The author also emphasizes that the current legislation governing patient care is not sufficient to ensure that the State party fulfils its obligations to act with due diligence to protect the right of women to be free from discrimination and violence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 In accordance with article 4.2 (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since the author did not submit a claim on the grounds of violation of her fundament al rights but rather a claim invoking financial responsibility followed by an administrative appeal and an application for amparo. The Committee also takes into consideration the author ’s assertion that the route she took is a legal and legitimate means of exhausting domestic remedies, and that the requirement for domestic remedies to be exhausted does not mean that she must exhaust all available remedies but only that she must ensure that the State party has the opportunity to take cognizance of and, if ne cessary, remedy a violation of the rights recognized under the Convention before the Committee considers the communication. In this connection, the Committee recalls the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which states that the authors of an individual communication are not obliged to exhaust all available remedies but __________________ 22 10/14 See articles 9.3 and 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution, Act No. 30/1992 of 26 November 1992 on the legal regime of public administrations and common administ rative procedure, and the regulations on procedures of public administrations in relation to responsibility, approved by Royal Decree No. 429/1993 of 26 March 1993, which were in force when the administrative claim invoking financial responsibility was submitted. 20-04882