CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005 is of the view that the granting of permission to the author to apply for a judicial review is uncertain. It further notes the State party’s contention that no allegation of sex discrimination has ever been formulated by the author and, as a consequence, the domestic authorities and/or courts have not yet had an opportunity to deal with such an assertion, which, in the opinion of the Committee, needs to be considered in the light of the State party’s obligations under the Convention. As a consequence, and in the light of the State party’s view that an allegation of sex discrimination would be relevant for consideration by the Home Office when again considering the author’s case and, in due course, could form part of the arguments in support of an application for permission to apply to the High Court for a judicial review, the Committee finds that the author should avail herself of this remedy. For this reason, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women finds the present communication inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee sees no reason to find the communication inadmissible on any other grounds. 7.5 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol on the basis that all available domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted; (b) 8 That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 07-37948