CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 Authors’ comments concerning the State party’s observations 8.1 On 17 November 2014, the authors submitted their comments regarding the State party’s observations on the merits, claiming that the State party had completely failed to substantiate the conclusions drawn and, overall, had failed to deal with the substance of the matter. 8.2 In the authors’ opinion, the State party did not address the main matter of “repeated domestic violence” and ignored a number of facts, such as that X was raped and subsequently forced to marry the perpetrator, that since 1996 she had suffere d ongoing and significant abuse at the hands of her husband and that the children had suffered continuous abuse, including being hit with various objects (this abuse was particularly acute for Y, given that she was regularly beaten, screamed at and shaken with force, her fingers were crushed in doors as a punishment and she was subjected to sexual abuse). The State party did not mention those events nor did it consider the legal obligations that those facts entailed. Nevertheless, that abuse, suffered over many years, and the authorities’ corresponding failure to respond to it form the vital background of the investigations conducted by the State party. 13 8.3 The authors argue that the observations of the State party demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of its obligations under the Convention, which becomes apparent from the presentation of the investigation and judicial determination as thorough and impartial. For example, X’s statement that she thought that her husband would not hurt their son in public led the State party to conclude that all her earlier complaints were vague and unfounded. The authors submit that this is not rational and demonstrates either bias against the authors or a preconceived notion of how victims of domestic violence behave. 14 With the authorities’ decision to close the case because the neighbours’ statements revealed no new circumstances, the burden of proving the case was placed on the authors. It is an overly high burden, given that they had already produced significant supporting evidence. 15 8.4 The authors highlight that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy their rights and freedoms. 16 They therefore maintain that the State party has failed to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish acts of gender -based violence, as set out in paragraph 19 of the Committee’s general recommendation No. 28. __________________ 13 14 15 16 14/19 The authors refer to communication No. 20/2008, V. K. v. Bulgaria, views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 9.9. The authors refer to V. K. v. Bulgaria, footnote 13 above, paras. 9.9 and 9.11, and communication No. 18/2008, Vertido v. the Philippines, views adopted on 16 July 2010, paras. 8.3 and 8.4. See V. K. v. Bulgaria, footnote 13 above, para. 9.9. The authors refer to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, para. 1. 15-14358