CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 applying to the Court. In addition, in Gasan v. Russian Federation, 5 the European Court of Human Rights found that the appeal procedure as amended did not constitute a standard remedy to be exhausted prior to applying to the Court. The cassation appeal proceedings cannot therefore be considered to be an effective remedy in cases similar to the present one. It is up to the State party to show that a particular remedy is effective, in particular, by providing examples of national court practice. That was not done in the present case. The authors contend that the examples quoted by the State party relate to cases that are different from the present one. 7.4 The authors reiterate that private prosecution is not an adequate remedy in cases of domestic violence. The Committee has noted the need to provide women who are victims of domestic violence with prompt access to justice, including, when needed, to legal aid. 6 7.5 In addition, the Committee has repeatedly recognized that the practice of qualifying domestic violence as a private matter is harmful and based on stereotypes. The practice of private prosecution places the burden of proof on the victim of violence, without ensuring the adequate protection of the victim (through a restraining order, for example). Only 20 per cent of criminal cases pursued through private prosecution end with a guilty verdict. Acquittals in cases of domestic violence account for 87 per cent of all acquittals in the Russian Federation. Non -governmental organizations have repeatedly pointed out the ineffectiveness of the procedure. In its concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of the Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/RUS/CO/8), the Committee expressed concern about the fact that domestic violence was treated as a “private matter” and recommended that the State party introduce ex officio prosecution of domestic and sexual violence. The European Court of Human Rights has also drawn attention to the need for criminal cases on family violence to be opened in the name of the State, irrespective of the readiness of the victim to initiate a private prosecution, and for perpetrators to be prosecuted and sanctioned. 7 7.6 In the present case, the authors reported the domestic violence to the police and requested the opening of a criminal case, but the authorities refused to do so for a long time, referring to the need to carry out private prosecution proceedings. As a result, the violence against the authors continued. The existence of a constant threat to the authors and their children should have been taken into account as an extraordinary circumstance when the police were deciding whether to open a criminal case. 7.7 In addition, an effective remedy, and access to that remedy, should take into account the special needs of victims of domestic violence. The private prosecution procedure requires the constant presence of the victim, even if she is represented by counsel. The absence of the victim from court leads to the closing of the case. Such proceedings are lengthy and, in addition, free legal aid is not provided, which limits access to the remedy, and recourse to such proceedings leads to the revictimization of the victims of violence. X. explained that, throughout the proceedings, each time she met her husband, he subjected her to physical violence in public places, in front of her minor daughter. Out of fear, she was obliged to seek out a shelter for victims of domestic violence. The remedy in question is therefore clearly inadequate in such circumstances, and the author had to risk her physical and psychological integrity __________________ 5 6 7 19-15442 European Court of Human Rights, Gasan v. Russian Federation (application No. 43402/02), judgment of 24 February 2005. See A.T. v. Hungary (A/60/38, part one, annex III). See European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey (application No. 33401/02), judgment of 9 June 2009; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria (application No. 71127/01), judgment of 12 June 2008; and M.C. v. Bulgaria (application No. 39272/98), judgment of 4 December 2003. 13/18