CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 author’s brother), also a victim of violence, had been a party to the application to the Court but not to the communication before the Committee. 6.6 The Committee noted that the two applications did not relate to the same substantive rights, given that, in the communication before it, the authors had invoked their right to equality and non-discrimination, whereas those allegations had not been invoked before the European Court of Human Rights. 6.7 Accordingly, the Committee considered that it could not be said that the “same matter” had been examined by the European Court of Human Rights and that it was thus not precluded from examining the communication before it by virtue of article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. It considered that the authors had sufficiently substantiated their claims under articles 1, 2 (b)-2 (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention for purposes of admissibility and declared them admissible. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 9 December 2013, the State party provided its observations on the merits. It asserts that the authors have failed to provide valid arguments to support their allegations concerning a violation of articles 1, 2 (b) -2 (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention in conjunction with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. 7.2 The State party claims that its authorities have fulfilled all their positive obligations under the Convention and refers to the investigations conducted. 7.3 The State party reiterates the facts and refers to the complaints submitted by X between 16 and 30 June 2004. On 30 June, an assistant in the District Prosecutor’s Office, in accordance with article 28 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, declined to initiate a criminal case against the husband in the light of the conflicting explanatory notes and the discrepancies throughout the interrogations. No illegal act was disclosed during the investigations. 7.4 The State party also makes reference to a complaint by X’s neighbour, K., to the District Prosecutor’s Office on 30 June 2004. The neighbour claimed that on 30 December 2002 water had leaked into X’s apartment and the husband had stormed in, attacked her children and damaged the apartment. She told prosecutors that, out of respect for X, she had at first refrained from reporting the incident to the police. When she had learned that X was seeking to press charges against her husband, however, she had decided to help her by making a statement. Nevertheless, on 7 July 2004, the neighbour said that she wished to withdraw her statement, indicating that she had reported the incident at X’s request. The State party maintains that, bearing in mind those facts, the discrepancies and contradictory statements demonstrate the inconsistency of the case and that proving the existence of any kind of illegal act on the part of the husband is complicated. 7.5 The State party indicates that, after the authors submitted another explanatory note on 7 July 2004, the investigative authorities of the District Prosecutor’s Office obliged the husband to pledge that he would abide by the law and not insult the members of his family. 7.6 On 15 July 2004, the husband submitted a statement to the District Prosecutor’s Office in which he noted that his wife had been diagnosed with aggressive psychosis, described assaults perpetrated by her against him at their home and at his workplace 15-14358 11/19