CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 20 May 2016, the State party presented its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It notes that, under article 401 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, decisions that have entered into force are subject to cassation appeal. The effectiveness of the appeal process is upheld in the decision of inadmissibility of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Abramyan and others v. Russian Federation,2 as well as in the views of the Committee in Medvedeva v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/63/D/60/2013). 3 4.2 As neither of the authors had submitted an appeal under the cassation procedure, the State party considers that the present communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 The authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on 23 June 2016. They note that, in the European Court of Human Rights case cited by the State party, the proceedings were civil and not criminal and are therefore irrelevant to the present case. As to the views of the Committee in Medvedeva v. Russian Federation, the authors note that, in that case, the Committee concluded that the appeal in cassation would not have brought effective relief and was therefore not a remedy to be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 5.2 In addition, in 2013 and 2014, all inquiries into the autho rs’ complaints were closed, with refusals to open criminal cases, before being quashed by the prosecutors and sent back to the same investigators, who then closed the cases again. The authors ’ attempts to obtain redress in the district and city courts were unsuccessful. The authorities did not carry out a single meaningful inquiry into the authors ’ allegations, which reflects a pattern in dealing with domestic violence cases. 5.3 In addition, the statutory limitations period for domestic violence allegation s is very short (two years) and had expired in connection with several incidents affecting the authors. In view of the fact that court proceedings in domestic violence cases in Moscow and Saint Petersburg can take up to 18 months, the likelihood of bringin g perpetrators to justice is very low. In some cases, acts of battery and infliction of injuries have not been prosecuted by virtue of amnesty acts, such as the amnesty granted in connection with the seventieth anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945). 5.4 The authors emphasize that the State party has referred to remedies that are extraordinary, unreasonably prolonged and unlikely to bring effective relief for the purposes of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 9 December 2016, the State party provided further observations on admissibility and the merits. It provided statistics to show that __________________ 2 3 10/18 See European Court of Human Rights, Abramyan and others v. Russian Federation (applications Nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13), decision of 12 May 2015. The State party also provides statistics to show that the proceedings in question are effective. 19-15442