CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009 also takes note of the details provided concerning the manner in which complaints of domestic violence were being dealt with by the area police inspector purely on the basis of administrative rules, namely that the inspector would simply record a written declaration from the offender not to commit similar acts in future, with such declarations not legally binding and therefore unenforceable. Whenever a victim insisted on making an official complaint, the prosecutor’s office would act as a mediator between the spouses rather than investigate the incident and prosecute the perpetrator. 9.5 The Committee gave due consideration to the manner in which the authorities in the State party handled the complaints of X and observes that, on 28 December 2001, the Isani-Samgori District Prosecutor’s Office declined to open a criminal investigation into another incident, of 23 December 2001, during the course of which X sustained injuries to her face and head, because she had withdrawn her complaint. The police responded to X’s complaints in respect of the physical attacks inflicted on her by her husband on 16 June and 3 and 15 July 2004 by simply requiring the husband to undertake in writing that he would not use further violence against his family. On 24 July 2004, the Office informed X that no criminal charges would be brought against her husband. Similarly, in response to X’s complaint of physical and sexual abuse of Y by her father made to the Office, supported by statements from X’s son, T., who related incidents of his father beating or molesting him and his sister and from X’s mother, the Office decided, on 30 June 2004, not to open a criminal case and not to press charges. The Committee further takes note that the State party has not challenged those allegations. On the contrary, in its submission of 5 September 2011, the State party admitted that when the alleged violence occurred national law was being harmonized with the requirements of the Convention. The State party also acknowledged that some deficiencies in investigation identifiable a t the time in question might have led to a violation of the authors’ rights. 9.6 The Committee notes that X submitted several complaints regarding the violence inflicted on her and her children by her husband to various authorities. 26 All her complaints to the police resulted in police officers obtaining from her husband a written undertaking not to inflict further violence on her and her children, even when, at least on one occasion, she had been issued with a medical certificate showing that she was a victim of superficial bodily injuries caused by beatings at the hands of her husband. The Committee notes that, the repeated written undertakings by the husband notwithstanding, the violence against the authors and the other children continued, with the authorities failing to react adequately to stop it. X’s initial complaint was discontinued, after she withdrew it, and the prosecuting authorities decided not to continue the investigation, the serious nature and gravity of the allegations notwithstanding. X’s additional complaints were all dismissed and the prosecuting authorities decided that there was no corpus delicti in the husband’s acts, whereas the courts simply declared the cases to be groundless. 26 Those statements have not been denied or challenged by the State party, which simply observed that X’s attorney was unable to counter the evidence gathered by prosecutors through numerous examinations, thus creating extremely high requirements regarding the burden of proof in a domestic violence case. 27 9.7 The Committee considers that, read in its entirety, the above-mentioned unrefuted facts demonstrate that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions, prohibiting __________________ 26 27 18/19 See paras. 2.10 and 2.11 above. For a similar approach, see, for example, V. K. v. Bulgaria, footnote 13 above, para. 9.9. 15-14358