CEDAW/C/73/D/100/2016 parties approved a settlement agreement, according to which the family apartment became the property of the author. Despite that agreement, G. remained in the apartment and continued to inflict violence on the author. 2.26 Y. notes that, on the night of 7 August 2014, G. hit her in the head. She called the police and sought medical assistance. According to the medical records, she suffered injuries that included soft tissue bruising of the head. On 9 August 2014, she submitted a complaint to the Zyablikovo District police department. On 10 August 2014, the police refused to open a criminal case and informed the author that she could submit a complaint to the justice of the peace. 2.27 On 5 September 2014, Y. requested the Nagatinsky District Court to order the eviction of her husband from her apartment. On 1 December 2014, the court ordered the husband to vacate the property. 2.28 On 17 November 2014, the Nagatinsky Inter-District Prosecutor reversed the decisions of the police of 5 March 2013 and 10 August 2014 not to open a criminal case. On 30 December 2014, the police refused to open a criminal case on the basis of the complaints of 27 March 2013 and 9 August 2014. On 4 March 2015, that decision was reversed by the Nagatinsky Inter-District Prosecutor. 2.29 Y. indicates that an evaluation of her medical records regarding the incident of 27 February 2013 was conducted on 18 May 2015, and an evaluation of her records regarding the incident of 7 August 2014 was not conducted until June 2015. To date, the author has received no update from the police regarding her complaints. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 2.30 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors note that they have persistently appealed to the district prosecutors and courts against the decisions of the police not to open criminal cases. In their complaints, the authors referred to the provisions of the Convention, including articles 1, 2 and 5 (a) thereof, and to articles 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They mentioned the lack of meaningful investigation; the reliance on stereotypes in the approach of the police regarding domestic violence; the degree of risk faced by the victims; the capacity of victims to defend their rights independently; and the illegality of the decisions not to initiate criminal cases. They also claimed that they were victims of discrimination with no remedy available to them; and that they had experienced breaches of their right to access to justice, of the prohibition of discrimination, torture and inhuman treatment and of their right to private and family life. Author X. 2.31 In September 2013, X. submitted a complaint to the prosecutor of Krasnogvardeisky District in Saint Petersburg about the inadequacy of the investigation into her domestic violence complaints and the fact that she had not been informed of any progress thereon. The prosecutor dismissed her complaint on 20 September 2013. In November 2013, she submitted a complaint to the prosecutor of Krasnogvardeisky District, because no inquiry under article 20 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been opened by the police. She referred to, inter alia, articles 1, 2 and 5 (a) of the Convention. Her complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor on 6 December 2013. 2.32 On 25 November 2013, she filed a complaint with the Krasnogvardeisky District Court regarding the inadequacy of the investigation into her domestic violence complaints that were registered on 9 July and 14 October 2013 and the refusal to open criminal cases. Her complaint was rejected on 23 December 2013. The author 19-15442 5/18