CCPR/C/130/D/3639/2019 requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. 10 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s arguments concerning the State party’s failure to identify the effective remedies that she could have pursued and the feasibility of doing so within the short time available, since her last gynaecological examination in July took place only days before the date on which she was allegedly scheduled to have her labour induced, against her will. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author could have requested highly protective measures under article 135 of Act No. 29/1998 on administrative jurisdiction, by initiating a simple de facto action before any Spanish public authority. It also notes that a decision on such measures must be taken within two days and that they allow action to be taken immediately without the authority receiving the request having to be notified beforehand. The Committee notes the author’s argument that taking legal action would have required her to pay out a considerable amount of money in a short period of time in order to meet the costs of her legal representation and defence, and that, failing that, she would have had to apply for free legal aid, which could have taken up to 10 days to be arranged. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which financial considerations do not, in general, absolve the author from exhausting domestic remedies.11 The Committee also notes that the author submitted her complaint to the Committee on 2 August 2019, four days after her birth plan had been rejected by the hospital, and that she was represented by two lawyers, one of whom practises in Spain. All the above indicates that the author could have pursued domestic remedies in order to prevent the alleged involuntary induction of her labour. The Committee is of the view that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies and that her claims are inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 10 11 6 P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; and A.P.A. v. Spain, communication No. 433/1990, para. 6.2. P.S. v. Denmark, communication No. 397/1990, para. 5.4; Faurisson v. France (CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993), para. 6.1; Kly v. Canada (CCPR/C/95/D/1576/2007), para. 6.4. GE.21-07305