CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 19 February 2007, the period for filing the complaint with the Panel ended six weeks after that date. The author merely submitted in the national proceedings that she had not been informed of the possibility of filing an appeal and of the legal basis for the undercover investigation until August 2008. 4.10 The State party noted that the author had argued that the six -week period for filing complaints was too short and that, without being informed of the legal basis of the undercover investigation, she had been prevented from filing a complaint in time. The State party argued that these arguments were not convincing, since it would have sufficed to describe the events in the complaint to the Administrative Panel and to allege a violation of rights. It was certainly not a prerequisite for filing a complaint to know exactly on which legal basis the authorities relied in their official act; it was not necessary to refer to the relevant legal provisions in the complaint. The information that the undercover investigation was based on the Security Police Act was irrelevant for filing the complaint with the Panel, inter alia , because, for all complaints against investigation activities and official acts by police officers, there was a uniform filing period of six weeks. The period for filing the complaint had in any event long expired, irrespective of the specific legal basis of the official act challenged by the author. The period for filing complaints with the Panel results from properly promulgated laws and was greatly exceeded, so that the favourable treatment of legal time limits by the Austrian courts for offering legal protection could no longer be applied. 33 4.11 The State party further maintained that the author had had sufficient and easily accessible possibilities available free of charge to inform herself of the right to file a complaint. For example, the first time a lawyer provides legal information in the State party, that service is free of charge. In addition, anyone can turn to the courts anonymously on the open-court day to obtain information on possibilities of legal protection. The Independent Administrative Panel of Lower Austria offered legal information on specific open days. The Ombudsman’s Office also offers legal information to persons seeking legal protection. Given that the author and her husband, who represented her before the Panel, both have a university educatio n, it can be assumed that both would have been in a position to become informed about legal protection opportunities and pertinent time limits. Moreover, the author could have relied on the assistance of a lawyer immediately after the official act of 19 February 2007, as she did subsequently when filing her complaints with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court and with respect to the official liability action. 4.12 The State party also maintained that the conduct of the police officers duri ng the official act of 19 February 2007, as well as the complaint regarding inhuman or degrading treatment, could have been comprehensively examined during the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel. Had it become obvious as a result of such an examination that the investigation was unlawful, the Panel would have been able to make a finding to that effect. There were thus effective instruments available to the author to examine in detail an allegedly unlawful police activity. That there was no such examination is exclusively due to the author ’s failure to file a complaint in time. The State party referred to a similar __________________ 33 16-13831 The State party referred to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 September 1996, coll. VfSlg. 14.571/1996. 13/20