CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 8.5 The authors reiterate the systemic failures in Georgian law at the time of the incidents complained of by the author 17 and the absence of legislation explicitly criminalizing domestic violence; 18 the failure to institute or implement any policy ensuring the investigation, prosecution and punishment of domestic violence; the absence of any legislation providing for restraining or protective orders; 19 the absence of sufficient training for law enforcement and prosecutorial/judicial State actors to ensure the protection of victims and the elimination of bias towards (predominantly male) persons accused of such violence as opposed to (predominantly female) complainants; and the absence of a gender-sensitive mechanism for interviewing victims and the practice of using non-enforceable written pledges by suspected perpetrators. The authors submit that the State party has failed to provide evidence or meaningful arguments to contradict this. It therefore appears that, although the State party in no way contests the accuracy of the facts presented, it disputes that the failings in question would amount to a violation of the rights relied upon. This is incompatible with the clear guidance given by the Committee. 20 8.6 The authors reiterate that, in the present case, the State party failed, among other things, to officially register complaints of domestic violence, to l aunch an investigation, to take into account the history of previous complaints of domestic violence, to recognize that the admitted incidents of physical violence constituted criminal offences and to provide gender-sensitive or child-sensitive reporting and interview settings. The authors therefore maintain that the State party failed to ensure the practical realization of the principles of non-discrimination and substantive equality under articles 1, 2 (c) and 2 (d) of the Convention. 21 8.7 The authors submit that there exists a sociocultural pattern of conduct in the State party that accords greater weight to the word of a man and that accepts a level of physical violence and sexual touching as being within the realms of acceptable parenting for a man. Customs and social patterns also perpetuate discrimination and prejudices based on the idea of inferiority or superiority. The authors add that the State party did not contest those discriminatory practices, social and cultural __________________ 17 18 19 20 21 15-14358 The authors refer to the concluding observations of the Committee on the first periodic report of Georgia (A/54/38/Rev.1, part two, para. 102); the concluding observations of the Committee on the combined second and third periodic reports of Georgia (CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/3, paras. 19-20); the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the second periodic report of Georgia (A/56/44, para. 82 (j)); the concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the second periodic report of Georgia ( CRC/C/15/Add.222, paras. 42-43); the concluding observations of the Committee on Econo mic, Social and Cultural Rights on the initial report of Georgia (E/C.12/1/Add.42, paras. 15 and 27) and the second periodic report of Georgia (E/C.12/1/Add.83, paras. 18 and 36); the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the second periodic report of Georgia ( CCPR/CO.74/GEO, para. 14); and the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, on international, regional and national developments in the area of violence against women for the period 1994-2003 (E/CN.4/2003/75/Add.1, para. 1996). The authors submit that such legislation was introduced only in 2012. The authors submit that such legislation was introduced only in 2006, with the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The authors invoke general recommendation No. 19, paras. 24 (b), 24 (k), 24 (r) (iii) and 24 (r) (v); and A. T. v. Hungary, footnote 12 above, para. 9.6 (g). They further refer to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, on the due diligence standard as a tool for the elimination of violence against women (E/CN.4/2006/61, para. 82). The authors refer to communication No. 47/2012, González Carreño v. Spain, views adopted on 16 July 2014, para. 9.9. 15/19