CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 completely passive, would impose an undue burden on her as the victim of gender based discrimination. The author therefore considers that she has been a victim of gender-based discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, read in the light of general recommendations No. 19 and No. 28, and that her complaint is admissible. 5.5 The author further submits that the State party did not react to the continuous harassment that she suffered at the hands of her former partner, which included threats, persistent calls and text messages, insults and physical stalking. She challenges the State party’s argument that the last and only documented episode of telephone threats is dated 24 February 2013. In her complaints to the police, the author cited the quantity and content of the threats that she had received from K. between 21 February and 25 May 2013. She considered that the nature and content of those calls and text messages were serious and had therefore repeatedly turned to the police asking them to ensure her safety. The author argues that even one complaint about one episode of threats should have sufficed for the police to take measures to protect her against the dangerous actions of her former partner, who had previously been found guilty of committing an act of physical violence against her. 5.6 The author further refers to the “systemic shortcomings” of the State party’s legislation and the lack of definition of “domestic violence” and “stalking”. She considers that the lack of such legislation leads to a need to apply the general provisions of the criminal law, which the State party refers to in its submission. In the author’s view, the circumstances of her case and reports of non-governmental organizations demonstrate that the general provisions of the criminal law are unable to ensure a timely and effective response to the problem of domestic violence. 5 5.7 The author further notes that the authorities qualified K. ’s actions as a death threat. That classification covers only a part of the unlawful and unwanted actions of K. against her. Even in that case, however, being guided by discriminatory and stereotypical notions of what constitutes a “real” death threat and to what extent K.’s actions were dangerous to the author, the authorities failed to initiate criminal proceedings, which resulted in the expiration of the statute of limitations for that particular offence. The authorities thus ignored the situation of stalking and fai led to consider the dangerous nature of the violence and its effect on the author ’s life. 5.8 The author draws attention to the State party’s positive obligation to provide protection from domestic violence to all women, regardless of the type of family in which they choose to live. The State party’s responsibility to fulfil its obligations cannot depend on the marital status of a woman. In accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), “domestic violence shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim” (art. 3 (b)). As follows from the author ’s case, over the course of several years family relations were established between the author and K. At the time of the event in question K. was a former partner of the author and the violence that he committed against her was directly connected to the nature of the relationship that had previously existed between them. The author therefore considers irrelevant the State party ’s arguments that, because K. was not a member of her family when he committed violence against her, she could not be a victim of domestic violence. __________________ 5 17-21669 The author refers to a report entitled “Violence against women in the Russian Federation” by the ANNA National Centre for the Prevention of Violence, submitted to the Committee at its forty sixth session. 7/12