CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 given that X. could defend her rights “on an independent basis”. A prosecutor quashed that decision on 15 December 2013. On 28 February, the distric t police transmitted the case materials to the justice of the peace, on the basis that no grounds for the initiation of a criminal case under article 20 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been found and the author could defend her rights independently. 2.17 Regarding the incident of 2 April 2013, police department No. 26 informed X. on 29 April 2013 that the case materials had been transmitted to the justice of the peace. In October 2013, the author asked department No. 26 to open a case under article 20 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Author Y. 2.18 Y. married G. in 1994. The couple had three sons, born in 1996, 2001 and 2011. 2.19 On 2 February 2006, G. threatened Y. with violence and beat her grandmother. A criminal case was initiated to investigate the incident. The case was later dismissed following the reconciliation between the author’s grandmother and husband. 2.20 On 20 August 2007, G. beat Y. and threatened to kill her in front of their children. She had to seek medical assistance and was recorded as having sustained injuries that included a bruised left shoulder and pelvis. She submitted a complaint to the police department of Zyablikovo District in Moscow. The police rejected her complaint. 2.21 During their marriage, G. regularly committed acts of physical and psychological violence against Y. The author regularly reported the violence to the police, to no avail. After a while, she contacted the police only in the most violent instances. 2.22 During the night of 12 June 2012, G. insulted Y. and threatened her with physical harm. He then hit the author in the head several times. She sought medical assistance at Moscow city clinic No. 192. On 18 June 2012, she submitted a complaint to the Zyablikovo District police department. An initial inquiry was opened and the husband was questioned; he denied any use of violence. One of the couple ’s sons confirmed his father’s statements. On that basis, on 22 June 2012, the police refused to open a criminal case. The decision not to open the case nevertheless mentioned that the acts of the husband could constitute a crime under article 116 (1) of the Criminal Code, but were subject to private prosecution in accordance with article 20 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, initiated through a justice of the peace. 2.23 On 27 February 2013, G. tried to force Y. to have sexual intercourse. When she refused, he hit her in the head several times, causing a contusion of the left parietal region. The author sought medical assistance. A record was prepared to the effect that she had suffered injuries that included bruising in the parietal area of the head. She submitted a complaint to the Zyablikovo District police department. During the preliminary investigation, her father confirmed that her husband had been violent. Nevertheless, on 5 March 2013, the police refused to open a case under articles 112 (intentional infliction of injury), 119 (threat o f murder) or 213 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. The author was informed that she could submit a complaint to the justice of the peace in a private prosecution case. Out of fear, however, the author did not do so. 2.24 In the light of the violence she had suffered, in April 2013, Y. sought assistance at the Nadezhda Centre for the Social, Legal and Psychological Protection of Women, at which she was provided with psychological support. 2.25 On 6 May 2013, Y. filed for divorce and division of property at the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow. On 11 September 2013, her marriage was dissolved. The 4/18 19-15442