3.3.4 Implications of the ‘exhaustion’ rule on women Of the general admissibility requirements listed above, exhaustion of domestic remedies is particularly a challenge for women seeking to bring individual complaints of violations or other forms of discrimination. Many women around the world lack general access to domestic remedies for violations they experience. Alternatively, the patriarchal bias against women entrenched in State institutions makes access to remedies very difficult. Such biases manifest in different ways - police around the world view domestic violence as a private matter that does not merit State intervention; claims of sexual violence by women are often considered incredible and therefore not investigated; women are harassed for daring to report violations, women’s secondary status is entrenched in law when it requires women to get their husband’s permission to pursue legal remedies; the low socio-economic status of women generally renders them powerless in approaching the often distant, abstract, intimidating and expensive legal systems. Moreover, “legal systems often discriminate against persons living in poverty who are unable to afford legal advice, are illiterate and are powerless to change legislative processes”. 77 The committees presiding over individual complaints of the human rights instruments have, in recognition of some of these challenges, adopted a broad interpretation of exhausting domestic remedies opening doors for women to access these mechanisms for justice. 3.3.5 Recognised exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule International and regional treaties provide for exceptions to the application of the exhaustion rule. For example, Article 46.2 of the American Convention establishes three situations in which the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply:78 (a) when the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) when the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; and (c) when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Similarly, the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR provides that the exhaustion rule shall not apply “where the application of the remedies has been unreasonably prolonged”,79 and the Optional Protocol to CEDAW provides that the rule will not apply where “the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief”.80 In determining whether the application of a remedy has been unreasonably prolonged, human rights bodies consider all of the circumstances, including the complexity of the case and the conduct of the author and the authorities. 81 For example, in the case of Giri v Nepal, the Human Rights Committee held that a failure to investigate allegations of torture and arbitrary detention four years after the State Party had been put on notice of those allegations amounted to an unreasonable delay. 82 In AT v Hungary the CEDAW Committee found that a delay of three years since the incident meant that remedies had been 77 Anderson, M ‘Access to Justice and Legal Process: Making Legal Institutions Responsive to Poor people in LDCs.’ SOAS Institute of Development Studies Working Paper No. 178, 2003 available at: www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/ap178.pdf. 78 Article 46.2 of the American Convention of Human Rights. 79 Article 5(2)(b). 80 Article 4(1). 81 See, for example, Gunaratna v. Sri Lanka, CCPR 1432/2005, 17 March 2009, para. 7.5. 82 Giri v Nepal, CCPR 1761/2008, 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. REDRESS | ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 23