CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 the authorities’ failure to effectively investigate X’s numerous complaints regarding the physical and sexual abuse inflicted on her and her children by her husband. 3.5 The authors add that their situation was well known by the police following numerous communications with X and her relatives. Beginning with the violent episode of 23 December 2001 and culminating in the incident of 17 July 2004 (both incidents were reported to the police), the physical assaults became more frequent. In addition to X, the children were subjected to verbal and physical assaults by their father, causing further quarrels among the parents. X called the police on several occasions to seek protection for her and the children, but no such protection was offered. 3.6 The authors claim that, under the Georgian Criminal Procedure Code, the police should have accepted and registered X’s complaints, launched a criminal investigation, gathered evidence, prosecuted the husband and taken action to prevent further violence. The police, however, failed to meet any of those obligations. The complaints made to the local inspector were never registered, properly investigated or prosecuted. In the light of the long history of violence and abuse, the police, by failing to respond immediately to the complaints, did not exercise due diligence to protect the authors from gender -based violence. The police and the prosecutors knew or ought to have known that the authors were continuously exposed to violence and abuse endangering their physical and mental health and were therefore under an obligation to prevent violence from occurring. 3.7 The authors add that the failure of the authorities to effectively address domestic violence in their case is also evident from the investigation of X’s complaint of 14 June 2004. She complained about the beatings of her children and of her husband’s inappropriate behaviour towards Y. The complaint was rejected on several occasions as “manifestly ill-founded”, “groundless” or “not surpassing the normal frameworks of attitude of a father to his children in the family”. The authorities merely gathered statements from the parties involved, without conductin g a medicalforensic examination, ignoring the previous domestic violence complaints. 3.8 The authors explain that several statements were collected from the children in the presence of a school psychologist. The children confirmed the beatings, with Y describing incidents in which her father touched her genitals and beat her. The prosecutors, however, doubted Y’s statements and requested the school psychologist to evaluate the children. The psychologist concluded that Y’s statement was repetitive, emotionless and used terminology that did not correspond to the child’s social environment, education or age. The authors explain that the prosecutors relied on those conclusions without verifying the psychologist’s proficiency, qualifications and expertise, arguing that such an opinion should have been sought from a psychologist with clinical experience. 3.9 The authors further explain that the prosecutors also inquired about the mental health of X and her husband. One Tbilisi Psychoneurological Dispensary diagno sed the husband as mentally healthy but excitable and irritable. Another Tbilisi Psychoneurological Dispensary certified that, while X was not registered as mentally ill, “this does not suffice to acknowledge a person to be mentally healthy”. On an unknown date, Tbilisi Clinical Hospital No. 5 diagnosed X with neurasthenia and prescribed treatment. The authors point out that “these certificates were requested from practitioners, not experts, and provided a general assessment rather than individual evaluations of the authors”. 15-14358 7/19