CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009 4.7 The State party concludes that the author’s complaint under the Convention is inadmissible. It claims that the form of the complaint and its content do not correspond to provisions of the Convention. Author’s comments on the observations of the State party on admissibility and merits 5.1 In a submission dated 4 February 2011, the author reiterates her initial claims and refutes the State party’s argument that the communication is not substantiated and should be declared inadmissible. 5.2 She further refutes the State party’s contention that no complaints were submitted to the administration of the temporary detention facility. The author claims that the head of the IVS facility himself treated her badly, insulting her by saying that she was “not a woman”. She had described all these facts in the article “Five days” published in The Brest Courier newspaper. A copy of the article was enclosed with the complaints she had submitted to the authorities. However, she stated that it was useless to address complaints to the detention facility’s personnel, including the head of the facility, in particular because national legislation prohibits the consideration of petitions by State officials whose own actions/omissions to act are being challenged. 5.3 The author further contests the State party’s argument that she did not submit complaints about the conditions of her detention to the Ministry of the Interior; she claims to have filed numerous complaints with the internal affairs organs. On 19 December 2007, a petition was submitted to the head of the Interior Department of Lenin District and to the head of the Interior Division of the Regional Executive Committee of Brest. On 5 February 2008, she filed a second complaint with the head of the Interior Division of the Regional Executive Committee of Brest. All those petitions were forwarded to the head of the Interior Department of Lenin District. Furthermore, after the publication of the article “Five days” in The Brest Courier, in December 2007 a member of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly filed a deputy’s motion with the Minister of the Interior requesting an explanation as to why minor offenders were being detained in IVS facilities in such inhumane conditions. The Minister requested all materials concerning the author’s case from the Interior Division of the Regional Executive Committee of Brest. She was subsequently questioned about the conditions of her detention and the alleged violations of her rights. This information was provided to the Minister of the Interior. The author thus submits that her complaints were examined by internal affairs organs at all levels: district, regional and national. 5.4 The author reiterates that she filed complaints with the internal affairs organs and the Prosecutor’s Office, and also addressed the courts under the civil procedure and the procedure for administrative offences. However, her attempts to exhaust domestic remedies were futile, as none of those remedies proved to be effective. 5.5 In respect of the merits of the communication, the author recalls that the subject of her communication under the Convention concerns primarily the discrimination she faced as a woman during her detention in the IVS facility, and not the conditions of detention as such. She maintains that in the IVS facility of the Interior Department of Lenin District where she was detained from 11 to 15 October 2007, as in most temporary detention facilities of the Ministry of the Interior, the staff was comprised exclusively of men from 2002 to 2009. This information was 11-51730 7