CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 judge and do not have a time limit. In addition, the Committee notes that the State party, despite having provided some statistics (see para 6.1 above) on the recourse to cassation proceedings in recent years, has not submitted examples to show that that there is a reasonable prospect that such procedures would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the present case, nor has it given an indication of how many of those cases had dealt with domestic violence. Furthermore, requiring the author to submit further complaints would result in additional undue delay. The Committee therefore considers that it is not precluded, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, from examining the present communication. The Committee also considers that it has no reason to find the communication inadmissible on any other grounds and accordingly finds it admissible. 8.5 Having found no impediment to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the authors and by the State party, in accordance with article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that, in violation of their rights under article 1 of the Convention, taking into consideration the Committee ’s general recommendations No. 19, No. 28, No. 33 and No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, the Sta te party has failed to assure their protection against repeated acts of domestic violence. In the present case, both authors suffered repeated acts of domestic violence perpetrated by their husbands. All complaints submitted by the authors or by medical pe rsonnel on their behalf to the authorities and the police were in vain and no criminal cases against the perpetrators were opened, despite the two decisions by which the Nagatinsky Inter District Prosecutor had reversed the police refusal to open a crimina l case, and the perpetrators were therefore not sanctioned. X. was never questioned by the police on the content of her claims, and neither author was informed by the authorities of any progress in her case. Instead, the authors were informed that they could initiate private prosecutions against the perpetrators. 9.3 The Committee recalls that discrimination against women within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention includes gender-based violence against women. 8 Such discrimination is not restricted to action by or on behalf of States parties. Rather, under article 2 (e) of the Convention, States parties are accountable for private acts, if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation. 9 In addition, the Committee recalls that article 2 (a), (f) and (g) establishes the obligation of States parties to provide legal protection and to abolish or amend discriminatory laws and regulations as part of the policy of eliminating discrimination against women. 10 9.4 The Committee considers that, by adjudicating acts of domestic violence through a system of private prosecution, the State party cannot fulfil its due diligence obligation to prevent and punish acts of violence as part of its obligations under article 2 of the Convention. In addition, under article 4 (c) of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, States are required to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of __________________ 8 9 10 19-15442 General recommendation No. 19, para. 6. Ibid., para. 9. General recommendation No. 28, para. 31. 15/18