CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men”. The Committee also recalls its concluding observations on the State party ’s eighth periodic report, in which it recommended that the State party should urgently adopt comprehensive legislation to prevent and address violence against women, including domestic violence; introduce ex officio prosecution of domestic and sexual violence; ensure that women and girls who were victims of violence had access to immediate means of redress and protection; and that perpetrators were prosecuted and adequately punished (CEDAW/C/RUS/CO/8). The Committee considers that the fact that a victim of domestic violence has to resort to private prosecution, wherein the burden of proof is placed entirely on her, denies the victim access to justice, as observed in paragraph 15 (g) of its general recommendation No. 33. The Committee notes that recent amendments to national legislation (art. 116 of the Criminal Code) that decriminalize battery, under which many domestic violence cases are prosecuted owing to the absence of a definition of “domestic violence” in Russian law, 12 go in the wrong direction and lead to impunity for perpetrators of these acts of domestic violence. 7.8 The Committee considers that the failure by the State party to amend its legislation relating to domestic violence directly affected the possibility of the author being able to claim justice and to have access to efficient remedies and protection. It also considers that the case shows a failure by the State party in its duty to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices that are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes, or on stereotypical roles for men and women. 7.9 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the manner in which the author’s case was addressed by the State party’s police and prosecutorial and judicial authorities constitutes a violation of her rights under articles 1, 2 (a), (c), (d) and (e), 3 and 5 (a) of the Convention. Specifically, the Committee recognizes that the author has suffered moral damage and prejudice. She was subjected to fear and anguish when she was left without State protection while she was periodically persecuted by her aggressor and was exposed to renewed trauma when the State organs that ought to have been her protector, in particular the police, instead refused to offer her protection and denied her status as a victim. 8. Acting under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol and in the light of the above considerations, the Committee is of the view that the State party ha s failed to fulfil its obligations and has thereby violated the author ’s rights under articles 1, 2 (b)–(g), 3 and 5 (a) of the Convention. 9. The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author of the communication: provide adequate financial compensation to the author commensurate with the gravity of the violations of her rights; (b) General: (i) Adopt comprehensive legislation to prevent and address violence against women, including domestic violence, introduce ex officio prosecution of domestic and sexual violence and ensure that women and girls who are victims __________________ 12 17-21669 As at 7 February 2017, battery of “close persons” without causing bodily harm was categorized as an administrative offence, rather than a criminal offence. 11/12