Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women v. Mauritius , Communication No. 35/1978, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 67 (1984). Submitted by: Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women on 2 May 1978 Alleged victims: The author and other Mauritian women State party: Mauritius Date of adoption of views: 9 April 1981 (twelfth session) Actio popularis--Concept of victim--Standing of authors--AliensMImmigration--Deportation --Naturalization--Residence--Right to marry --Protection of family--Sex discrimination-Equal protection of the law--Political rights Articles of Covenant: 2 (1), 3, 17, 23, 25 and 26 Articles of Optional Protocol: 1 and 2 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol' 1.1 The authors of this communication (initial letter dated 2 May 1978 and a further letter dated 19 March 1980) are 20 Mauritian women, who have requested that their identity should not be disclosed to the State party.2 They claim that the enactment of the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Deportation (Amendment) Act, 1977, by Mauritius constitutes discrimination based on sex against Mauritian women, violation of the right to found a family and home, and removal of the protection of the courts of law, in breach of articles 2, 3, 4, 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The authors claim to be victims of the alleged violations. They submit that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 1.2 The authors state that prior to the enactment of the laws in question, alien men and women married to Mauritian nationals enjoyed the same residence status, that is to say, by virtue of their marriage, foreign spouses of both sexes had the right, protected by law, to reside in the country with their Mauritian husbands or wives. The authors contend that, under the new laws, alien husbands of Mauritian women lost their residence status in Mauritius and must now apply for a "residence permit" which may be refused or removed at any time by the Minister of Interior. The new laws, however, do not affect the status of alien women married to Mauritian husbands who retain their legal right to residence in the country. The authors further contend that under the new laws alien husbands of Mauritian women may be deported under a ministerial order which is not subject to judicial review. 2. On 27 October 1978, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility. 3. The State party, in its reply of 17 January 1979, informed the Committee that it had no objection to formulate against the admissibility of the communication. 4. On 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee,