CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 communication involving a belated legal remedy in which the Committee rejected the communication as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 34 4.13 The State party submitted further that domestic remedies have not been exhausted also because the author voluntarily agreed to a settlement: after receiving part of the damages sought, the author agreed with the Federal Minister of the Interior, as the highest police organ, to conclude the proceedings without a court decision. The author cannot therefore assert before the Committee legal violations because of events in respect of which a comprehensive settlement has alrea dy been reached by her at the national level. The author did not submit any circumstances to the effect that the settlement was invalid. 4.14 With regard to the undercover investigation before 19 February 2007, the State party submits that the author was informed of the undercover investigation preceding the official act of 19 February 2007 on the day of the official act and could thereafter have filed a complaint with the Independent Administrative Panel within the prescribed period of six weeks. The applicant expressly noted in the national proceedings that she was aware of the undercover investigation on 19 February 2007. 4.15 Domestic remedies have also not been exhausted with regard to the transmission of data by the Lower Austrian Criminal Investigation Department to the Tax Office challenged by the author. The complaint filed with the Constitutional Court against the negative decision of the Data Protection Commission of 6 September 2013 is pending. The State party maintained that, if a communication is filed with the Committee before the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, the communication should be declared inadmissible. 35 4.16 The State party submitted that, moreover, domestic remedies have not been exhausted because the author has not suitably substantiated the violation of rights under the Convention now alleged before the Committee in the national proceedings. It is a prerequisite for the admissibility of a communication that the author must have raised in substance at the national level the cla im of a violation of rights under the Convention. 36 Since the subject matter of the Convention is the elimination of discrimination against women, the author would have had to claim, in a suitable manner, discrimination based on her gender in the domestic p roceedings. However, the author did not raise any such claims in a suitable manner. In her complaint about the official act of 19 February 2007 with the Independent Administrative Panel, the author did not allege that she had been discriminated against as a woman by the conduct of the authorities or by laws of Austria. Her complaint of a violation of other rights without referring to a specific act of discrimination as a woman is not a suitable discrimination claim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. 37 The discrimination claim in her complaints with the __________________ 34 35 36 37 14/20 See B.-J. v. Germany (note 32 above), decision of inadmissibility of 14 July 2004, para . 8.6. Communication No. 15/2007, Zheng v. the Netherlands, views adopted on 27 October 2008, para. 7.3; see also Human Rights Committee, communication No. 942/2000, Jonassen and others v. Norway, decision of admissibility adopted on 25 October 2002, para. 8.6. See Zheng v. Netherlands, (note 35 above) para. 7.3; see also communications No. 11/2006, Salgado v. the United Kingdom, decision of admissibility adopted on 22 January 2007, para. 8.5, and No. 5/2005, Goekce v. Austria, views adopted on 6 August 2007, para. 7.2. Communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 January 2006, paras. 7.6 and 7.7. 16-13831