CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015
2.6 On 21 May 2013, the author submitted a written complaint to the police
concerning the text messages of 20 May 2013 and asked the police to conduct a
criminal investigation. On 30 May 2013, the same officer who was in charge of the
complaint made on 24 February 2013 rendered an official decision refusing to
initiate a criminal investigation on the same grounds as previously.
2.7 On 2 March 2013, the author appealed against the decision of the magistra te’s
court of 21 February 2013 on the grounds that the sentence was too lenient and
asked for higher compensation. On 20 June 2013, the author petitioned the same
court for protective measures from K. Both her appeal and petition were denied on
11 July 2013.
2.8 On 26 August 2013, the author again requested the police to initiate criminal
proceedings against K. on account of his death threats, but in vain. In total, the
police rendered seven decisions refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against K.
on the same grounds that they could not interrogate him because he would not come
to the police station and, because he was not backing up his threats with action, the
author’s life was not in danger. Those decisions were all signed by the same police
officer.
Complaint
3.1 The author contends that the Russian Federation failed to fully implement the
Convention and, in particular, to introduce contemporary and comprehensive
legislation on domestic violence in line with international law that was “put in into
effect by State actors who understand and adhere to the obligations of due
diligence”. She argues that there is no definition of domestic violence in the
national legislation. Not every form of domestic violence can be prosecuted under
the Criminal Code or even the Code of Administrative Offences. No protective
measures can be requested by victims of domestic violence. In that regard, the
author claims that by not addressing the issue of domestic violence in its legislation
the State party is violating her rights under articles 1 and 2 (b), (c), (e) and (f) of the
Convention, read in the light of general recommendation No. 19.
3.2 The author also claims that the State party did not respond adequately to the
new threats of violence against her and was reluctant to promptly examine her
numerous complaints. The State party also failed to implement special measures,
such as protective orders, to ensure her immediate safety. The author further claims
that the general measures of State protection in criminal p roceedings are not
designed to provide protection for victims of domestic violence. She therefore
claims that the State party has violated the positive obligations imposed on it in
accordance with articles 1 and 2 (b)–(g) of the Convention, read in the light of
general recommendations No. 19 and No. 28.
3.3 The author further contends that, in considering her persistent requests for
protection from domestic violence, the officials were guided by stereotypes about
what constitutes domestic violence and to what extent it is dangerous to the victim.
Following misconceptions that domestic violence is not of a serious nature and does
not constitute a “real” threat to a woman’s life, safety or physical or mental
integrity, the authorities remained completely passive in response to the author ’s
complaints, which amounts to a violation of her rights under article 5 (a) of the
Convention, read in the light of general recommendations No. 19 and No. 28.
3.4 The author notes that she repeatedly lodged complaints with the police and
that the only action taken in response was to interrogate the author herself. The
police refused to initiate criminal proceedings without even interrogating the
alleged perpetrator or taking any other steps. Even though all the refusals were l ater
quashed by the District Prosecutor ’s Office and returned for additional inquiry, the
17-21669
3/12