CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009 exhaustion of domestic remedies, and in the absence of any information from the State party as to the existence of other available and effective domestic remedies of which the author could have availed herself, the Committee concludes that the requirements of article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.3 With regard to article 4, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has been informed that the same matter has not already been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations relating to articles 2 (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), 3 and 5 (a), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and thus declares the communication admissible. 6.5 In view of the foregoing, the Committee does not share the State party’s view that the form and content of the author’s communication do not correspond to the provisions of the Convention and that it should be declared inadmissible. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the present communication complies with the admissibility criteria set out in articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Optional Protocol. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, as provided for in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her detention for five days in poor, unhygienic and degrading conditions, in a temporary detention facility staffed exclusively by men where she was exposed to humiliating treatment, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination on the basis of her sex, within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and constitute a violation by Belarus of its obligations under articles 2 (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), 3 and 5 (a), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee observes that the State party has only summarily refuted these claims, considering them unsubstantiated. It has not provided any clarifications on the substance of these allegations, but limited itself to a general description of the detention premises (e.g., the size of the cells, the existing equipment, furniture, etc.), including reference to national administrative acts regulating, for example, the food ration of prisoners. In the view of the Committee, although this description may be of relevance, it does not necessarily address the substance of the author’s claims: for instance, the author did not contest the existence of a light bulb in the cell, but specifically complained that it provided insufficient light; likewise, she did not complain about the lack of a heater in the cell, but claimed it was turned off at all times. Furthermore, the State party did not comment in any way on the author’s allegations that staff working in the detention facility were exclusively male and that, as a result, she was subjected to gender-based discrimination. In this regard, the Committee recalls its recent concluding observations on the State party’s report (CEDAW/C/BLR/CO/7), in which it expresses grave concern about inhuman and degrading treatment of women activists during detention, and urges the State party to ensure that the complaints submitted by those women are promptly and effectively investigated (paras. 25 and 26). 10 11-51730