CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 State party adds that some deficiencies in investigation identifiable at the time in question may have led to a violation of the authors’ rights. In that light, it invites the authors and their representatives to engage in discussions regarding an amicable settlement of the case. 4.2 On 21 October 2011, the authors’ representatives confirmed the authors’ willingness to engage in a possible amicable settlement. On 22 April 2012, the authors’ counsel informed the Committee about discussions with the authorities in that regard. On 20 June, she added that there had been no developments. 11 Additional comments by the parties 5.1 On 22 August 2012, the authors explained that their application had been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 December 2008 as manifestly ill-founded by a decision of a committee composed of three judges, without giving a reason for its decision. On 17 September, the authors pro vided a copy of their application to the Court of 14 March 2007 and of the Court’s decision of 9 December 2008. 5.2 On 4 January 2013, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol to the C onvention because the authors had applied, on 14 March 2007, together with one of X’s sons, to the European Court of Human Rights, which had studied the case and, on 9 December 2008, declared the application inadmissible under articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). 5.3 On 25 March 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They note, among other things, that the present commun ication is focused on the gender-specific impact of domestic violence and the gender discrimination inherent in the State party’s failure to respond to and to prevent violence against women and girls. By contrast, in their application to the European Court of Human Rights they did not refer to gender-based discrimination, but focused on the personal impact of the abuse suffered by Y and her brother and on the harm caused to X as a mother unable to protect her children. Such distinction is reflected in the differences regarding the parties, the facts and the legal complaints. Before the Court, the authors did not complain about discrimination, sex -based or otherwise, and accordingly did not invoke a violation of article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, but rather focused on the personal impact of the abuse suffered by Y and her brother. It was alleged that X was also a victim of a violation under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because she was unable to protect her children from such abuses. Their application focused on a breach of articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This stands in contrast to their complaint to the Committee, which refers to discrimination on grounds of sex (see para. 3.1). Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 6.1 On 26 July 2013, at its fifty-fifth session, the Committee examined the admissibility of the communication. It noted, for purposes of article 4 (2) (a) of the __________________ 11 15-14358 No further details on the amicable settlement discussions were submitted by the parties. 9/19