CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016 Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 8.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits. Pursuant to rule 72 (4), it is to do so before considering the merits of the communication. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted or that the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. 53 The Committee notes that both parties maintain that the present case concerns not the sterilization itself, but the right of the authors to an effective remedy and the alleged lack of such. The Committee notes the argument by the authors that the existing general remedies in the State party are not effective and that there is no special remedy available to them. The Committee also takes note of the assertion by the State party that the civil action for protection of personal rights and the constitutional appeal constitute appropriate and effective remedies to seek redress, including financial compensation, and that the State party is under no obligation to provide special or criminal remedy. The Committee further notes the explanation by the State party that the general three-year statute of limitations was not applied to the above-mentioned civil law remedy until 2008 and that its possible disproportionate effects on victims after 2008 were mitigated by the Constitutional Court’s interpretation in the light of the good morals doctrine. The Committee notes that the State party provides examples of jurisprudence in order to illustrate that the civil law remedy would have been effective in securing the rights of the authors, including to financial compensation. 8.3 The Committee observes that five of the authors were sterilized between 1982 and 1990 and one in 2001, and that they became aware of the consequences of their sterilization several years before 2008. It also observes that none of the authors attempted to exhaust the available domestic remedies either before or after 2008. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which “mere doubts about the effectiveness of the remedies do not absolve an individual from exhausting domestic remedies”.54 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the authors have not exhausted the available domestic remedies and that the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol; (b) authors. The present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the __________________ 53 54 18/18 E.S. and S.C. v. United Republic of Tanzania (CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013), para. 6.3; L.R. v. Republic of Moldova (CEDAW/C/66/D/58/2013), para. 12.2. Zhen Zheng v. Netherlands (CEDAW/C/42/D/15/2007), para. 7.3. 19-15443