CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 4.6 The State party believes that the author had not exhausted all available domestic remedies before applying to the Committee and therefore considers that her complaint should be deemed inadmissible under article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 4.7 On 23 February 2013, police station No. 1 in Saint Petersburg registered the author’s complaint that K. had called her and sent her text messages containing threats of death and physical violence. The allegations were investigated under article 119 of the Criminal Code 2 and, on 7 March 2013, the authorities issued a decision not to prosecute K. owing to a lack of corpus delicti. The author was duly informed of the decision and of her right to appeal against it. 4.8 The State party also notes the author ’s complaint against the refusal by the police, dated 7 March 2013, to initiate a criminal case against K. 3 and states that this decision was repeatedly returned as unlawful and unsubstantiated by the District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation. The last such procedural decision was taken on 20 March 2016 and sent to the supervising prosecutor for termination owing to incomplete investigation. Currently, there is an internal investigation by the police regarding the failure to carry out the action demanded by the District Prosecutor’s Office and to investigate the author ’s complaints in due time. The State party maintains that, in accordance with the information available in the case files, the last and only episode of telephone threats made by K. against the author is dated 24 February 2013. 4.9 As to the merits of the case, the State party argues that the author has not sufficiently substantiated her complaint. It further notes that, notwithstanding the absence of the term “domestic violence” in Russian legislation, its meaning, depending on the circumstances of the case, can be classified as torture (art. 117 of the Criminal Code), threats of death or grave bodily harm (art. 119 of the Criminal Code) or insult (art. 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offences). Moreover, committing a crime using physical or mental violence is viewed as an aggravating circumstance (art. 63 (1) (k) of the Criminal Code). 4.10 The State party argues that the author has not substantiated her claim that it failed to provide equal legal protection of the rights of women and men, failed to provide, through courts and other State bodies, effective protection of women against acts of discrimination and failed to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women. 4.11 Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of human beings and citizens, irrespective of their gender, and equality before the law and courts. Men and women have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their realization. The author was not limited in terms of access to justice and had access to effective remedies, which she used. As a result, K. was found guilty of committing battery without causing bodily harm to her health and was sentenced to four months of corrective labour and to provide compensation for the moral damage that he had caused. The sentence fully corresponds to the severity of the crime committed. 4.12 The State party further considers that the author ’s complaint does not include arguments demonstrating that the law used to criminalize K. ’s actions would be __________________ 2 3 17-21669 Article 119 of the Criminal Code states that a threat to cause death or grave bodily harm, if there are grounds to believe that such a threat will be carried out, is punishable by compulsory labour of up to 480 hours, limitation of freedom of up to two years, compulsory labour of up to two years, arrest of up to six months or deprivation of liberty of up to two years. The author’s initial complaint asking the police to initiate a criminal case against K. was lodged on 24 February 2013. 5/12