CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 different standards for women and men with respect to sexual health. These laws make women, in particular sex workers, solely responsible for sexually transmitted infections, although there is no scientific basis for this, while there are no similar regulations addressing men, in particular clients of sex workers. As a consequence, the author became subject to an unlawful police operation to enforce thes e laws. She suffered from discrimination against women caused by unequal legal approaches for women’s and men’s health, in violation of article 12. 3.13 Concerning article 1, in conjunction with article 13 (c), of the Convention, the prostitution laws cause the police to assess the leisure activities of men and women differently as soon as there is a sexual connotation. As a result of gender stereotypes, the unconventional sex life of the author gave rise to a suspicion of illegal prostitution, and the police used unlawful means to interfere. There are no undercover investigations by the police to uncover men suspected of seeking contacts with sex workers. It followed that the author suffered from discrimination against women resulting from gender stereotypes about sex life, in violation of article 13 (c) of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 18 April 2014, the State party submitted that, in the course of routine investigations, on 29 January 2007, officers of the Lower Austrian Criminal Investigation Department investigating trafficking in persons came across an advertisement by the author on an Austrian Internet-based contact forum. It was clear beyond doubt from the text of the advertisement that she was offering sexua l acts to men against payment, referred to by her as “TG” (Taschengeld, or “pocket money”). An officer of the Investigation Department subsequently contacted her as an “interested client” using an undercover e-mail address, and on 29 January 2007 the author sent him an e-mail offering sexual acts against payment. During further contacts on the telephone and by e-mail, the author (and her husband) gave him her telephone number and address and transmitted photographs depicting her naked, in underwear or having sexual intercourse with various partners. On 19 February 2007, officers of the Investigation Department came to the address given by the author; one of them rang the bell at 8 p.m. as the expected client, while the others were waiting nearby. The author ’s husband opened the door and let the presumed client into the house. The author was already waiting for him — in underwear — in the living room. After they agreed on the terms of payment, the presumed client disclosed his identity, telling her that he was a police officer, and showed his police identification card. In response to his question, the author said that she neither had a so-called control card for persons working as a prostitute nor had she notified her local community of her activities as a prostitute. After the author brought in her husband, the officer also brought his colleagues into the house. Since the author refused to accompany them to the police station for interrogation, a transcript of her statements was made on the spot. 4.2 The State party noted that the author maintained in her communication that she had been induced by the officers on 19 February 2007 to make a confession and that the officers had not permitted her to dress, thus exposing her to “forced nakedness”. In the transcript of her statement of 19 February 2007, signed by the author, there is no indication in that respect. The author did not raise these issues in her subsequent e-mail to the Investigation Department on 20 February 2007. Nor did she expressly challenge the statement of facts by the Independent Administrative Panel of Lower 16-13831 9/20