CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 discriminatory. In addition, the author provides no evidence that K. ’s actions were motivated by the author being a woman or directed towards discriminating against her based on her gender. 4.13 Lastly, the State party believes that, since K. was not a member of her family at the moment of the alleged violence, because the author began living with a nother man in 2010, the author ’s claim that she was a victim of domestic violence is also unsubstantiated. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In her comments dated 12 July 2016, the author challenges the State party’s assertion that she did not exhaust all domestic remedies. She claims to have exhausted all effective legal remedies concerning all the violations referred to in her complaint regarding the lack of reaction by the State party to the continuous stalking, including persistent calls and text messages, insults, threats and physical stalking, from which she suffered at the hands of her former partner. 5.2 As regards the appeal to the Oktyabrskiy District Court against the decision of 11 July 2013 denying her measures of protection, the author claims that such an appeal would not have been effective because those measures are not designed for the protection of victims in domestic violence cases. The author and her counsel are not aware of a case in which such measures have been granted in relation to victims in privately prosecuted criminal cases, which are considered to be the least serious. She further claims that the law on State protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings is discriminatory in nature and cannot be seen as an effective and urgent remedy for the protection of victims of domestic violence, because the burden of proving the existence of a direct and imminent threat to life and health beyond reasonable doubt is placed entirely on the victim, who acts as a private prosecutor in a criminal case. Moreover, such protective measures can be effective only if they are applied immediately. In the author ’s case, her petition for protective measures was considered 22 days after its submission, which is seven times longer than is prescribed by law. 4 5.3 The author notes that she repeatedly complained to the District Court and the District Prosecutor about the inaction of the police and their decisions in the course of the preliminary examination after her complaints of stalking. The decisions by the police not to initiate criminal proceedings against K. were found unlawful by the District Court and the District Prosecutor ’s Office, but this did not lead to a positive result for the author. The author further notes that, three years after the event, the authorities have still not conducted the necessary investigation into an act of domestic violence, brought the perpetrator to justice or provided her wit h protection from stalking, nor compensated her for the damage arising from the psychological stress linked to the threats of violence repeatedly made to her by K. 5.4 The author believes that the internal legal remedy that the State party referred to (see para. 4.8 above), is unduly prolonged and unlikely to lead to effective relief within the meaning of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. Between February and August 2013, the author lodged several criminal complaints with the police about threats and stalking, and was reasonably hoping that the police would conduct the necessary investigation into them. The author believes that, considering her persistent attempts to bring her claims before the national authorities, the request to continue her efforts using ineffective legal remedies, while the authorities remained __________________ 4 6/12 See article 18 (2) of the law on State protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings. 17-21669