CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 4.2 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient substantiation and abuse of rights, as the author is seeking a review of the evidence even though the domestic courts’ assessment of this evidence was exhaustive. 4.3 The State party also maintains that the communication is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since, at the internal level, the author did not submit a claim on the grounds of a violation of her fundamental rights but rather a claim invoking financial responsibility followed by an administrative appeal and an application for amparo. 18 4.4 The State party maintains that the Convention was not violated because the assessment of the evidence was not arbitrary, no manifest error was made and justice was not denied. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 14 August 2019, the author submitted her comments on the State party ’s observations. She argues that the State party allowed gender stereotypes and discrimination against women to be perpetuated, both in the clinical process of childbirth and during the judicial proceedings, thereby violating her right not to be discriminated against on the basis of her gender. In support of these allegations, the author refers to Ángela González Carreño v. Spain, in which the Committee concluded that stereotypical and therefore discriminatory notions had been applied in the judicial decisions. 19 5.2 With regard to the allegation that the procedure selected for the purpose of upholding the rights in question is inapposite, the author recalls that the purpose o f the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is to ensure that States parties have the opportunity to remedy a violation of any of the rights recognized in the Convention through their legal systems before the Committee considers the violation, but that, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has made clear, “the requirement to exhaust all remedies available under domestic law does not mean that the alleged victims are obliged to exhaust all the remedies at their disposal.[…] If the alleged victim endeavoured to resolve the matter by making use of a valid, adequate alternative judicial remedy available in the domestic legal system and the State had an opportunity to remedy the issue within its jurisdiction, the purpose of the international legal precept is fulfilled.” 20 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that, if more than one possible effective remedy is available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one, and can select the remedy she considers most appropriate for her case. 21 The author therefore submits that the route she took, namely, submitting a claim invoking financial responsibility, then lodging an appeal before the administrative courts and applying for amparo, is a legal and legitimate way of exhausting domestic remedies. __________________ 18 19 20 21 20-04882 The State acknowledges, however, that the author made domestic allegations of violations of the right to equality and discrimination on the grounds of gender, physical an d psychological integrity, and personal and family privacy. See González Carreño v. Spain (CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012), para. 9.7. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Arley José Escher et al. v. Brazil, Petition 12.353, Report No. 18/06, 2 March 2006, para. 28. European Court of Human Rights, Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal, Application No. 65681/01, Judgment of 29 April 2004; Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 41183/02, Judgment of 15 November 2005; Karakó v. Hungary, Application No. 39311/05, Judgment of 28 July 2009, para. 14; Aquilina v. Malta, Application No. 25642/94, Judgment of 29 April 1999, paras. 40 et seq.; and Micallef v. Malta, Application No. 17056/06, Judgment of 15 October 2009, para. 58. 9/14