CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 police still refused to conduct any meaningful investigation. The author further notes that, because of a two-year statute of limitations, any attempts to prosecute K . after February 2015 were time-barred. Thus, the refusal by the authorities to conduct an effective and prompt inquiry into the long -term threats made against the author and to bring the perpetrator to justice, as well as into the use of stereotypical notions of what constitutes domestic violence, violates articles 2 (b) –(f) of the Convention, read in the light of general recommendations No. 19 and No. 28. 3.5 The author claims that the police never genuinely investigated her complaints and even though the refusal by the police to conduct a criminal investigation was quashed by the District Prosecutor ’s Office and by the District Court it has not led to any meaningful investigation of her complaints to date. She was thus deprived of any effective remedy and, as a result, of any compensation and rehabilitation, in violation of articles 2 (b) and (e) of the Convention. 3.6 The author also argues that the authorities have provided no psychological support to K. to prevent the reoccurrence of his violent acts. T he current law and practice provide no rehabilitation programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence or the mandatory attendance of a psychologist or therapist, in violation of articles 2 (b), (e) and (f) of the Convention, read in the light of general r ecommendation No. 19. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 29 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It recalls that the author lived with K. and their child from 2008 to 2010. At the beginning of 2010, their relationship ended, at the initiative of the author. Nevertheless, K. sought to revive the relationship, which led to conflict. On 21 February 2013, based on the author ’s private complaint before a court, K. was found guilty by Magistrate’s Court No. 1 of the Admiralteysky District of having committed a crime under article 116 (1) of the Criminal Code (battery) and was sentenced to four months of corrective labour and for 5 per cent of his income to be withheld by the Government, with a six-month probationary period. In addition, K. paid the author 3,000 roubles as compensation for moral damage. The State party claims that the author did not complain to law enforcement bodies about any other acts of physical violence by K. 4.2 On 1 March 2013, the author submitted an appeal to the Oktyabrskiy District Court regarding the decision of the magistrate’s court of 21 February 2013 on the grounds that it was too lenient and sought higher compensation for mora l damage. The appeal was denied on 11 July 2013, as the Court found that the punishment was proportionate to the offence committed and not unduly lenient. 4.3 Furthermore, within the appeal process, the author petitioned for measures of protection in accordance with the law on State protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings. On 11 July 2013, the Oktyabrskiy District Court denied her petition on the grounds that there was no objective information showing the existence of a real threat to the life and health of the author or her relatives. 4.4 Neither the author nor her counsel lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the lower court of 21 February 2013 or the decision of the appellate court of 11 July 2013. 4.5 The State party notes that the author ’s dissatisfaction with the results of trials does not amount to a violation of the Convention. The decisions of the courts are based on national legislation and do not contradict international law. In that regard, the author’s complaint can be viewed as an abuse of the right to a fair trial. 4/12 17-21669