CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 were unable to continue their legal action and were essentially forced to accept the settlement offer. To require the authors to take such an immense risk to exhaust domestic remedies would be unreasonable and would perpetuate the intersecting discrimination that they suffered. 5.3 Whereas the State party asserts that the authors did not raise claims of discrimination before the national authorities, the authors maintain that the discriminatory element of their claims was made clear before the national courts. In their plea, five of the authors stated, regarding the risk created by the conduct of the undercover officers, that “the aforesaid risk had a discriminatory impact on women in that it impacted upon them disproportionately if not exclusively at the time ”. The Human Rights Act 1998 could have been invoked only by two of the authors, because it came into effect only in October 2000. The authors did not invoke article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights because their claim arose in October 2011, before the extent of the activities of the officers was known. The clear discriminatory impact has become more evident over time. The authors maintain that the State party understood that their complaints concerned discrimination, as is made clear from the public apology issued, which contained the following remark: “I entirely agree that it was a gross violation [of privacy] and that it may well have reflected attitudes towards women that should have no part in the culture of the Metropolitan Police ”. Moreover, in its views in communication No. 19/2008, the Committee considered that, although the State party asserted that the author had not raised discrimination before the national authorities, discrimination had clearly been shown owing to the presence of gender-based violence. 5 The facts that the authors have raised before the Committee are the same as those raised before the national courts. 5.4 Furthermore, the remedies that the authors received (compensatory damages and a public apology) were not “complete and effective remedies” within the meaning of the Committee’s general recommendations. The women remain entirely ignorant of the reasons for and extent of the surveillance to which they were subjected. Specifically, they do not know: (a) whether or why they were targeted for a relationship; (b) at what level of authority people were aware of or sanctioned the relationship; (c) when the surveillance ended, or whether it continued after the relationship ended; (d) how information about them was shared; (e) what kind of information was shared; (f) how much information was shared and with whom; and (g) by whom they were watched, and when. This is crucial information, without which the authors are unable to know the scope of the harm to which they were subjected, and they are haunted by uncertainty. The refusal to provide information has exacerbated the authors’ suffering. The opportunity for the authors to understand the truth of what happened to them should form a key component of treatment. The authors describe in detail their attempts to obtain disclosure of such information. 5.5 In addition, the remedies that the authors obtained from the State party did not include an assurance of non-repetition. While the College of Policing produced draft guidance in 2016, stating that such sexual relationships should never be authorized or used as a tactic of deployment, the authors do not know whether the guidance has ever been formalized, nor is such guidance sufficient reassurance of non -repetition. The authors seek legislative changes to criminalize the activity in question and ensure that it will result in prosecution, while allowing officers to raise as a defence the existence of extraordinary and extenuating circumstances. In the absence of such changes, the authors remain at risk of being subjected to the impugned behaviour again should they engage in political activism, and they are psychologically affected every time evidence of similar deceit is discovered. Guarantees of non -repetition are part of an effective remedy. __________________ 5 12/15 Kell v. Canada (CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008), para. 7.4. 19-22187