individual redress and reparations to women and girls who are denied reproductive health services. Instead the CHR will only document acts of discrimination and reproductive rights violations, analyze them, and “provide concrete recommendations to the State and the concerned agencies to address individual and systemic/structural barriers to women’s access to reproductive health services”71. Limited coverage of victims’ compensation program. While claims for compensation may be filed by victims of violent crimes before the Board of Claims under the DoJ, lack of awareness of the state party’s victims’ compensation program and strict conditions for application and grant of such claims limit its availability and impact. While the program has been in place for 24 years, only 49,000 applicants have been able to avail of the service since its creation because of lack of information of the program’s existence.72 Further, the amount of each claim is minimal and limited only to Php 10,000 (approximately USD 210) or less and must be filed within six months from the date the victim suffered the damage or injury.73 Furthermore, since the program is applicable only to victims of violent crimes, women who are victims of reproductive rights violations e.g. denial of modern contraceptives or post-abortion care are excluded from its coverage. Lack of formal recognition of reproductive rights violations in the Osil case. As raised in our pre-session letter, Osil v. City of Manila, a lawsuit filed in January 2008 seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and revocation of EO 003, was dismissed in October 2014 for being moot in light of the enactment of the RPRHA.74 Since the dismissal of the case, there has not been any formal recognition of the harm suffered by petitioners— twenty male and female poor residents of Manila City who had been denied access to the full range of contraceptive information and services—and reproductive rights violations committed under EO 003. Further, the local government of Manila has failed to issue an apology to the petitioners in the Osil case and all other women in Manila City who were denied contraceptive access and experienced unwanted pregnancies under EO 003 as recommended by the CHR in 2011.75 Absence of functioning Reproductive Health Officers (RHOs) in all LGUs. While the DILG in its 2015 memorandum mentioned above reiterated the responsibility of LGUs to assign RHOs, no information is publicly available on how many RHOs have been assigned and are functioning to date. Even the DoH’s latest report on the implementation of the RPRHA released in April 2016 failed to provide any information on the operations of RHOs in LGUs. II. Suggested Questions and Concluding Observations for the State Party Reflecting on the information and concerns presented in our pre-session letter and this submission, the undersigned organizations respectfully request that this Committee pose the following questions to the delegation representing the state party during its 64th session: 1. To what extent has the state party adopted measures to establish effective monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure implementation of the