CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 submitted an appeal against that decision. On 17 April 2014, her appeal was dismissed by the Saint Petersburg City Court. 2.33 On 25 November 2013, she filed a complaint with the Krasnogvardeisky District Court regarding the inadequacy of the preliminary inquiry into her complaint that was recorded on 5 June 2013 and the refusal of the police to open a criminal case. In her submission, she referred to, inter alia, articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The District Court dismissed the complaint on 14 January 2014. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Saint Petersburg City Court on 13 May 2014. The District Court re-examined the case on 27 June 2014 and recognized the prolonged duration and inadequacy of the preliminary inquiry, but upheld the rest of the decision. The decision was confirmed on appeal by the Saint Petersburg City Court, on 1 Octo ber 2014. 2.34 On 13 March 2014, X. filed a complaint with the Krasnogvardeisky District Court regarding the illegality of the acts of the officers of police departments No. 13 and No. 26, alleging inadequate investigation, unlawful refusal to open crimin al cases under article 20 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the unlawful transfer of her case to the justice of the peace. She invoked her rights under, inter alia, articles 1, 2 and 5 (a) of the Convention. Her complaint was rejected on 9 June 2014. On appeal, on 26 August 2014, the Saint Petersburg City Court confirmed the decision of the District Court. Author Y. 2.35 On 10 November 2014, Y. filed an appeal with the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow against the police decisions of 5 March 2013 and 10 August 2014 not to open a criminal case and the negligence of the police. She claimed that the violence that she had suffered was systemic and noted that the police had the authority to directly open a criminal case. In her appeal, she referred to, inter alia, articles 1, 2, 5 and 16 of the Convention and the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. On 20 November 2014, the Nagatinsky District Court rejected her appeal because, on 17 November 2014, the Nagatinsky Inter-District Prosecutor had reversed the police decisions of 5 March 2013 and 10 August 2014 not to open a criminal case. The Court provided no reply to the author’s arguments. 2.36 The Nagatinsky Inter-District Prosecutor ordered an independent medical examination in connection with the injuries sustained by Y. on 27 February 2013. The examination was carried out on 18 May 2015. 2.37 On 30 December 2014, the police refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with Y. complaint of 27 July 2013. The author filed an appeal agai nst that decision with the Nagatinsky District Court. On 16 March 2015, the Nagatinsky District Court dismissed the author’s complaint. The author filed a further appeal with the Moscow City Court on 26 March 2015. On 25 May 2015, the Moscow City Court rejected her appeal. The Court noted that the police had acted in accordance with the law and that no negligence had been found. 2.38 The authors submit that their rights under articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention have been violated and that the State party should be requested to provide them with appropriate redress, including the effective investigation and punishment of the perpetrators, monetary compensation for moral damages, public recognition of the violations, a public apology and the provision of psychological rehabilitation. As to general measures, they assert that the State party should undertake the following: nullify the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure law relating to the private prosecution of crimes committed within the family; guarantee that criminal prosecution of domestic violence cases be carried out only on behalf of the State; release victims of domestic violence from the responsibility of appearing in court 6/18 19-15442