CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 when trying to exhaust it. Similarly, Y., who is a mother of three, was obliged to continue to live in the same apartment with her husband, who constantly subjected her to violence. She felt unsafe, but the authorities offered her no protection, despite being aware of the ongoing violence. Those circumstances prevented her from undertaking a private prosecution in her case. In addition, even with legal representation, the presence of the two authors would have been required in court. Furthermore, given the general amnesty act of 2015 on the seventieth anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, all attempts to have the perpetrators sanctioned would have been futile. 7.8 In the light of the foregoing, the authors claim that the State party failed to demonstrate that the remedy invoked was adequate or that access to it was ensured, given that it could not bring effective relief, restore the authors ’ rights or protect them against ongoing violence. 7.9 In addition, the authors contend that the absence of special legislation regarding the protection of victims of domestic violence, urgent protection measures (protection orders) and free legal aid in domestic violence cases constitute violations of the Convention. In that connection, the authors note that the State party has not objected to that aspect of the communication. 7.10 In 2016, article 116 of the Criminal Code, addressing battery of close relatives, was amended and the prosecution of such cases passed from the category of private to private-public (the case is opened by the police following a complaint by an injured party). In February 2017, battery of relatives was decriminalized and such acts no longer constitute a crime and are categorized as an administrative offence. 7.11 In the light of the above considerations, the authors consider that they have done everything possible to protect their rights at the domestic level. For a long time, the authorities were aware of the authors’ situations of repeated violence and threats against them, but neither of the authors could receive the assistance that they needed. Given that they have submitted numerous complaints to the police and to the courts of first and second instance, the recourse to a further, extraordinary, ineffective and non-accessible remedy could not be seen as corresponding to the spirit of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, th e Committee is satisfied that the matter has not already been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the present communication on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party observed that under article 401 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, court decisions that have obtained the status of res judicata may be subject to a cassation appeal. Neither of the authors, however, submitted a cassation appeal. 8.4 The Committee has taken note of the authors’ objections as to the effectiveness of cassation proceedings in criminal cases. The Committee notes that the proceedings in question are aimed at challenging decisions that have entered into force, on points of law only. The decisions on whether to refer a case for hearing and examination by a cassation court are discretionary in nature, given that they are made by a single 14/18 19-15442