CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005 4.2 As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party alleges that there are effective remedies against the decision of 8 May 2006 by the Home Office, which refused the author’s request for discretionary leave on humanitarian grounds. It nevertheless acknowledges that because this decision was communicated to the author at the same time as the State party’s observations on admissibility, the author could not have exhausted this remedy before actually getting the Home Office decision. Therefore, the Government alleges that now, the author can seek permission to apply for judicial review by the High Court. The State party considers the granting of such permission very unlikely, in the light of the history of the case and the fact that such a request would be based upon the same factual and legal arguments developed previously before the national authorities (and the European Court of Human Rights). The State party notes that no allegation based on discrimination against the author as a woman was ever formulated by the author before the domestic authorities and/or courts and that, as a consequence, the domestic authorities and/or courts have not yet had an opportunity to deal with the author’s assertion that the decisions involved sex discrimination. The State party refers in that regard to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee explaining the purpose of the exhaustion of domestic remedies 1. The State party further notes that such an allegation would be relevant for consideration by the Home Office when considering the author’s case and, in due course, could therefore form part of the arguments in support of an application for permission to apply to the High Court for judicial review. While recognizing that it might not have been necessary for the author to have referred specifically to any specific articles before the national authorities, the State party maintains that the author has to raise the relevant substantive right(s) in the Convention for an application to be admissible. 4.3 The State party also contends that the communication is inadmissible on the basis that the same matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol, i.e. the European Court of Human Rights. The State party submits that individual proceedings before the European Convention on Human Rights constitute proceedings of international investigation or settlement 2. It further refers to the concept of “same matter” 3 and maintains that the same author has brought an identical complaint to the European Court of Human Rights 4, which was given an application number 116/05. The application was dismissed as inadmissible by the The State party refers to paragraph 8.3 of the Human Right Committee communication 222/78 T.K. v France (CCPR/C/37/D/222/1987). 2 The State party refers to Joseph, Schultz and Castan’s The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Cases, Materials and Commentary(2 nd edition, 2004) para 5.06. 3 The State party refers to the jurisprudence on the notion of “same matter” of the Human Rights Committee, communications 75/80 Fanaly v Italy (CCPR/C/18/D/75/1980) para. 7.2 and 168/84 V.O. v Norway (CCPR/C/25/D/168/1984) para. 4.4. It also refers to the Human Rights Committee communications 993/2001, 994/2001 and 995/2001, para. 6.4. 4 The State party adds “even if perhaps slightly more focused in relation to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights which were alleged to have been violated”. 1 07-37948 5