CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 although the action was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. 39 Civil action has continued to constitute an effective and appropriate remedy. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court developed judicial practice mitigating pot ential consequences of the limitation period in sterilization cases. 4.24 Individuals can also file an appeal before the Constitutional Court to claim violations of their fundamental rights. The authors could have explicitly alleged a violation of the Convention before the Constitutional Court, given that a constitutional appeal constitutes a priori effective remedy. 40 4.25 Even if the authors considered that there might have been certain inconsistencies in the case law of the domestic courts, it does not mean that the civil action was unlikely to bring effective relief, especially in a situation where the authors have “not made the slightest effort to avail [themselves] of available domestic remedies”.41 The State party recalls the jurisprudence of the Committee that “mere doubts about the effectiveness of the remedies do not absolve an individual from exhausting domestic remedies”.42 4.26 On the merits, the State party asserts that the substance of the complaint of the authors lies in the alleged lack of effective and appropriate remedies. The requirements of the Convention in respect of the right to remedy closely resemble the requirements of the exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The admissibility question of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the consideration of the merits. Whether there was an effective and appropriate remedy available to the authors in respect of their sterilization remains the central question. The State party refers to its observations on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in which it dealt in detail with the question. 4.27 The State party is aware of the gravity of the interference that unlawful sterilization bears. However, in sterilization cases, there is no specific obligation to provide a special remedy stemming from the Convention. The notion of the right to remedy allows for some degree of discretion for the States parties in designing their systems of remedies. The claim of the authors concerning the alleged emerging consensus on the need to adopt special legislation on compensation for unlawful sterilization is not fitting, given that it concerns a very small number of States, which solved, historically and substantively, different situations. It cannot be infe rred from the authors’ inactivity at the national level that the State party is obliged to adopt a special remedy. A general remedy adequately adapted for the purposes of finding a violation of women’s personal rights should be a preferred option over a special remedy, given that it ensures equality before the law and is not prima facie discriminatory. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 December 2016, the authors maintained that the Committee was not asked to establish individually whether they were victims of forced sterilizations, but rather to establish that they lacked a remedy appropriate to the systemic nature of the practice of forced sterilizations of Roma women. It is nonsensical to expect people __________________ 39 40 41 42 12/18 Czech Republic, Supreme Court, Case File No. 30 Cdo 2819/2009, judgment of 23 June 2011; Case No. 30 Cdo 1528/2014, judgment of 22 October 2014. The Court held that the objection of limitation concerning the claims for financial compensation of unlawful sterilizations was raised contrary to good morals and quashed the judgments of lower courts. European Court of Human Rights, Buishvili v. Czech Republic, application No. 30241/11, judgment of 25 October 2012, para. 56; Heglas v. Czech Republic, application No. 5935/02, judgment of 1 March 2007, para. 46. Dayras and Others v. France (CEDAW/C/44/D/13/2007), para. 10.12. Zhen Zheng v. Netherlands (CEDAW/C/42/D/15/2007), para. 7.3. 19-15443