CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 7.13 The psychologist who attended the interviews found, among other things, that the children talked about traumatic issues in a non -emotional way, with phrases learned by heart, that their terminology was uncommon for their age and that the late reaction of X and her mother concerning the events made the facts appear extremely vague. The psychologist concluded that the children were not emotional and that there was a high possibility that they might have been influenced. 7.14 On 7 November 2004, the District Prosecutor’s Office, referring to the interviews, the report of the psychologist and other suspicious discrepancies, refused to initiate a criminal case against the husband, concluding that the children had been influenced by their mother and that it was illogical for X to ha ve accused her husband of paedophilia yet permitted the children to work with him and stay with him in another town overnight. 7.15 That decision was annulled by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office, which indicated, among other things, that the neighbours and the husband’s colleagues had not been questioned and that no interview had been conducted regarding the neuropathological treatment undergone by X. The State party asserts that the decision shows, once again, the authorities’ willingness to investigate impartially and promptly. 7.16 The neighbours and colleagues subsequently testified that X’s husband was a decent man who cared a lot about his family and that they had never observed any inappropriate behaviour on his part towards children. Some also claimed that X was a very jealous woman who spread rumours about and defamed her husband. In addition, the doctor who had treated X was questioned. He confirmed having diagnosed her with neurasthenia and prescribed her treatment. 7.17 On the basis of the aforementioned interviews, the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate a criminal case, a decision that was annulled by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office on 11 February 2005. The grounds for the rejection were, among others, that the husband’s doctor should be questioned with regard to the husband’s severe character accentuation and personal disorder, all the neighbours living on the same floor as the authors should be questioned and a complete characterization of X and her husband concerning their education and social status should be obtained. 7.18 Consequently, the husband’s doctor was questioned. She explained that his character accentuation did not constitute a mental disorder or sexual perversion, but that persons suffering from such accentuation were prone to irritation and inclined to argue about trivial matters. For their part, the neighbours described the family as a good family and decent people, while the husband’s employer said that he was honest. The State party submits that the interrogations re vealed no new circumstances in the case. 7.19 The State party further reiterates that the case was examined and rejected on 4 August 2005 by the Office of the General Prosecutor, on 29 November by the Tbilisi Court of First Instance and on 7 February 2006 by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. 7.20 The State party therefore concludes that its authorities have fulfilled all the components of the positive obligation under the Convention. In addition, it observes that there are no indications of discrimination on the basis of sex and that all investigative procedures were conducted promptly and impartially, in line with the relevant articles of the Convention and the case law of the Committee. 15-14358 13/19