Advance unedited version CEDAW/C/77/D/133/2018 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With regard to article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes the author’s assertion that she has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies, by bringing the conditions of the detention before the Supreme Court on two different grounds, and that this was not contested by the State party. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded under article 4 (1) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee declares the communication admissible, as far as it raises issues under articles 2 (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), 3 and 5 (a), of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication i n the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, in accordance with article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her detention: (a) in the Maili-Say temporary isolation ward between 2 February 2013 and 16 January 2014, 19 February and 25 June 2014, 9 October and 25 December 2014 and 17 February and 23 April 2015; (b) in the Jalalabad temporary isolation ward between 26 June and 23 July 2014, 27 December 2014 and 17 February 2015 and 23 April and 28 August 2015; (c) in the Tash-Komur temporary isolation ward between 24 July and 8 August 2014; (d) in the Nooken temporary isolation ward between 9 October and 5 December 2014 and 17 February and 5 March 2015; and (e) in the Bazar-Korgon temporary isolation ward between 25 and 27 December 2014, in poor, unhygienic and degrading conditions, in isolation wards staffed exclusively by men where she was exposed to humiliating treatment, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination on the basis of her sex, within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and constitutes a violation by Kyrgyzstan of its obligations under articles 2 (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), 3 and 5 (a), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee observes that the State party has not provided any clarifications on the substance of these allegations, but limited itself to a general description of the detention premises (e.g., the size of the cells, the existing equipment, furniture), including reference to single examples such as the conditions of the Maili-Say temporary isolation ward or one episode where the author was searched by women staff. In the view of the Committee, although this description may be of relevance, it does not necessarily address the substance of the author’s claims, for instance, that the toilet facilities did not exist or were open to the extent that most of the author’s body would be visible to male guards when using the toilets. Furthermore, the State party did not comment in any way on the author’s allegations that staff working in the detention facility were exclusively male and that, as a result, she was subjected to gender-based discrimination, apart from a single episode in the Nooken facility. 7.4 In accordance with article 3 of the Convention and rule 53 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Committee recalls that women prisoners shall be attended and supervised by women officers. It further recalls its general recommendation No. 35 updating general recommendation No 19, according to which discrimination against women within the meaning of article 1 encompasses gender-based violence, defining it in paragraph 6 as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman 7/10