CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009
investigation.5 On 25 July, X filed an appeal with the Isani-Samgori District Court,
claiming that the refusal was unlawful, groundless and biased. On 4 October, the Court
annulled the refusal of 30 June, finding that the Office had omitted to consider the
accounts of the authors and the mental health of the husband and had taken only the
husband’s account of events into consideration when refusing to open a criminal case.
Prosecutors again collected statements from X, her mother and the children. On
7 November, the Office refused to press charges against the husband, concluding that
the alleged lecherous action in relation to the children and paedophilia had not been
confirmed and that the children had been influenced by their mother. X appealed and
the decision was annulled on 8 December. The case was transmitted to the Office,
which collected additional evidence from the husband’s employees and his
neighbours. On 28 December, the Office again refused to open a criminal case, noting
that the husband had been positively assessed by his neighbours and business partners
and declaring the authors’ claim unsubstantiated. On 24 January 2005, X appealed
against the decision. On 11 February, the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office annulled the
decision of 28 December 2004 and returned the case to the District Prosecutor’s Office
for failure to properly investigate the complaint. On 11 March, X wrote to the General
Prosecutor requesting to have her complaint of 16 June 2004 examined, given that her
husband was threatening her and the children. By a ruling of 12 March, the District
Prosecutor’s Office refused to bring charges against the husband. X appealed against
that decision to the General Prosecutor’s Office, which rejected her appeal on
4 August on the grounds that the actions of her husband did not constitute a crime. X
appealed against that decision to the District Court, which rejected it on 29 November
as unsubstantiated. She appealed against that decision to the Tbilisi Court of Appeal.
Her appeal was heard in her absence, on 7 February 2006, and rejected as groundless.
The decision was not subject to further appeal. 6
Complaint
3.1 The authors submit that the above facts reveal a violation by the State party of
articles 1, 2 (b)-2 (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention because the State party has failed
to comply with its duty to enact criminal law provisions to effectively protect
women and young girls from physical and sexual abuse within the family, has failed
to provide equal protection under the law to victims of domestic violence and sexual
abuse and has subjected the authors to torture by failing to protect them from
domestic violence.
3.2 In substantiation, with reference to articles 1 and 2 of the Convention together
with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, the authors explain that the
State party has failed in its duties under the Convention to condemn discrimination
against women in all its forms, to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to
prohibit gender-based violence and to investigate and punish human rights
__________________
5
6
15-14358
The District Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the father’s actions did not surpass the normal
frameworks of attitude of a father to his children in the family; that he had permanent conflict
with his wife concerning the rules of bringing up children and behaviour in the family; and that
he liked to pet the children but his wife and the grandmother perceived his actions to be
lecherous. The prosecutor in charge concluded that the actions of the father were not lecherous
and refused to open a criminal case.
On 22 August 2012, the authors’ counsel added that an application on behalf of the authors had
been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 14 March 2007 and declared
inadmissible on 9 December 2008 (see paras. 5.1-5.2).
5/19