CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 must give the State party the opportunity, through a relevant chosen mechanism, to remedy the matter within its jurisdiction. 23 The Committee also observes that the author brought before the Constitutional Court all the issues that it has before it in relation to the alleged obstetric violence, including the high frequency of digital vaginal examinations, the administration of oxytocin without information or consent and the performance of an episiotomy without information or consent, alleging that her rights to physical and psychological integrity and personal and family privacy and to receive information and decide freely had been violated. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the issues raised in the communication have been exhausted at the domestic level and therefore does not consider itself precluded by the requirements of article 4.1 of the Optional Protocol from considering the merits. 6.4 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible because the author is seeking a review of the domestic courts ’ assessment of the facts and evidence, and that these courts made an exhaustive assessment of the evidence. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the legal proceedings conducted in her case were imbued with gender stereotypes regarding motherhood and childbirth, which distorted the judge ’s discernment and resulted in a decision based on preconceived beliefs and myths rather than facts, which contrasted with the empathy that the judge showed towards the father. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the judicial authorities did not take into account the various pieces of expert evidence she provided throughout the legal proceedings. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence and the application of national law in a particular case, unless it can be established that the evaluation wa s conducted in a manner that was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 24 In the present case, taking into account the fact that the author not only chall enges the conclusion of the domestic authorities but also requests a review of the domestic proceedings on the grounds of an alleged denial of justice and gender-based discrimination resulting from stereotypes present in the society of the State party, the Committee considers that it is competent to examine the present communication and thus to determine whether there was any violation of the rights recognized under the Convention in the judicial process conducted in the domestic courts in relation to the obstetric violence alleged by the author. 6.5 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations under articles 2, 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and therefore declares the communication admissible under those articles and proceeds to examine it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information placed at its disposal by the author and the State party, in accordance with the provisions of article 7.1 of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The author maintains that the pathologization of her labour, through early admission, unnecessary digital vaginal examinations, the administration of oxytocin without information or consent, forcing her to give birth in the lithotomy position, performing an instrumental extraction and an episiotomy without information or consent, and, lastly, separating her from her daughter because of an infection probably __________________ 23 24 20-04882 European Court of Human Rights, Airey v. Ireland, Application No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979; Granger v. United Kingdom, Application No. 11932/86, Judgment of 28 March 1990; and Hilal v. United Kingdom, Application No. 45276/99, Judgment of 6 March 2001. See H.D. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014), 9 July 2018, para. 7.7. 11/14