CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009 administrative offences as established by article 7, paragraph 1, of the Procedural Executive Code of the Republic of Belarus on Administrative Offences. In a decision dated 14 March 2008, the court refused to initiate civil proceedings, although the author claims that she had not requested the court to start civil proceedings but to recognize, in accordance with the procedure set out in chapter 7 of the Procedural Executive Code of the Republic of Belarus on Administrative Offences, that the actions (and omissions to act) of the detention facility staff violated her rights. On 28 March 2008, the author appealed against this decision to the Brest Regional Court. On 28 April 2008, the Judicial Board on Civil Cases of the Brest Regional Court quashed the decision of the Lenin District Court and referred the case back for new consideration. On 12 May 2008, the Lenin District Court dismissed the author’s complaint on procedural grounds. The court stated, inter alia, that at the time of submission of her complaint the administrative process against her had already been terminated, since the court’s decision had entered into force. The author claims that this argument is not true, as the legal process is not terminated as long as there is the possibility to appeal. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that she is a victim of violation by Belarus of her rights under article 2, paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), article 3 and article 5, paragraph (a), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. She claims that during her detention she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and that detention in a cold cell amounted to torture. She further claims that such conditions of detention may have had an adverse effect on her reproductive health. 3.2 The author claims that temporary detention facilities of the Ministry of the Interior are not adapted for the detention of women. Allegedly, only one such detention block, located in Minsk, is staffed by female employees; the rest are staffed exclusively by men. The author claims that the Ministry of the Interior refused on numerous occasions to confirm or deny this information and to provide the number of temporary detention facilities where no female staff are employed, invoking the legislation of the Republic of Belarus on protection of State secrets, which restricts access to such information. She submits that this situation in the temporary detention facilities is a result of discrimination in the hiring of women as staff. 3.3 The author submits that her conditions of detention were worse than those of male prisoners, since she was the object of sexual harassment and was subjected to degrading treatment by male personnel. She invokes rule 53 (3) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Economic and Social Council resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977), which stipulates that “Women prisoners shall be attended and supervised only by women officers”, and claims that the breach of rule 53 (3) constitutes a violation of her right not to be discriminated against on the basis of her sex, as set forth in the Convention. 3.4 The author claims that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies and that they proved to be ineffective. She also claims that the same matter has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11-51730 5