CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009 Interior Department of Lenin District after the registration of her communication by the Committee. In December 2010 and January/February 2011, information that female police officers are working in the IVS facility came to the author’s attention. In order to confirm this information, the author and her counsel addressed letters to the head of the IVS facility with a request to officially confirm or refute the information, as well as to provide information on the number of female staff and the dates that they became part of the personnel. In a letter of 14 March 2011, the head of the IVS facility confirmed that women are at present working in the IVS facility, but did not indicate their number or the date of their employment. Despite these positive changes, the author maintains that her communication should be examined by the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee shall decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Pursuant to rule 72, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it shall do so before considering the merits of the communication. 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication shall be declared inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, because the author did not submit complaints on conditions of her detention to the administration of the IVS facility or the Ministry of the Interior. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted, unless the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the author must have raised in substance at the domestic level the claim that he/she wishes to bring before the Committee 1 so as to enable domestic authorities and/or courts to have an opportunity to deal with such a claim. 2 In this respect, it notes that the author submitted complaints regarding the conditions of detention and the disrespectful attitude of male prison personnel towards her to the internal affairs organs, inter alia, the head of the Interior Department of Lenin District and the head of the Interior Division of the Regional Executive Committee of Brest. The author also filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office and brought suits under both civil and administrative procedures in the competent courts. Furthermore, after a deputy of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly submitted a motion to the Ministry of the Interior in December 2007, the author was questioned about detention conditions and violation of her rights, and the results were presented to the Ministry of the Interior. The State party has not contested this information. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author diligently pursued domestic remedies, by addressing her complaints to the competent authorities of the internal affairs organs, to the Prosecutor’s Office, as well as to the national courts. In the light of the uncontested information provided by the author as regards the __________________ 1 2 11-51730 See communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision of 27 January 2007 (CEDAW/C/34/D/8/2005), para. 7.7. See communication No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. The United Kingdom, decision of 30 May 2007 (CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005), para. 7.3. 9