CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 and requested prosecutors to do everything possible to protect him from such physical abuse and to secure psychiatric treatment for his wife. 7.7 On 14 and 15 July 2004, the District Prosecutor’s Office requested the Tbilisi Psychoneurological Dispensary to provide any records regarding the psychological conditions of X and her husband. The authorities received information regarding the husband’s “severe character accentuation”. Furthermore, on 16 June, the area’s senior police officer requested X to undergo an examination at the Dispensary, but she refused. 7.8 After X appealed against the decision of the District Prosecutor’s Office of 30 June 2004, the Isani-Samgori Regional Court annulled that decision on 4 October, finding, among other things, that prosecutors had relied solely on the husband’s explanatory note, that other minor family members or witnesses had not been questioned and that no legal action had been taken to verify the psychological status of X and her husband. The State party concludes that the resolution shows that the judicial authorities demonstrated the will to investigate promptly, thoroughly, impartially and seriously all allegations of domestic violence, as established by the Committee’s case law, without any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of sex. 12 7.9 The State party draws attention to the statement by X of 18 October 2004 to the effect that her elder son, D., regularly worked with his father at the market. Accordingly, she was apparently not concerned that her husband would harm him. The State party therefore submits that that statement renders the preceding statement by X absolutely vague and unfounded. 7.10 Furthermore, the questioning of the other minors in the presence of a psychologist and a teacher at the children’s school revealed additional facts contradicting the statements by the authors. Y told the psychologist that, three years previously, when she had gone with her brother, T., and her father to Telavi, her father had not beaten them or caressed them inappropriately. T. refuted the allegation that their father had ever taken the two of them to Telavi, but stated that he had stayed with his father and his brother, A., in Telavi at their aunt’s house for a fortnight and his father had not beaten them during t hat time. The State party points out that that statement also shows that X was not concerned about leaving the children alone with their father. 7.11 While the elder sons, D., and S., were being questioned, they maintained that they had witnessed no inappropriate acts on the part of their father, only hearing of them from their mother and their grandmother. They further stated that their mother and their grandmother frequently talked to them about paedophilia. The State party therefore claims that the children were to some extent brainwashed by their mother and their grandmother, causing them to testify against their father. 7.12 The youngest son, A., said during questioning that he was there because his mother and his grandmother wished to seize his father’s business so that the elder brother could work there and support the family. According to the State party, that statement raises suspicion about the circumstances of the case and calls into question the allegations by the authors. __________________ 12 12/19 The State party refers to communication No. 2/2003, A. T. v. Hungary, views adopted on 26 January 2005. 15-14358