The case of O.G. v. the Russian Federation. Opinions of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women dated November 6, 2017. Communication No. 91/2015.
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
By failing to investigate the author's complaint about death threats and threats of violence in a prompt, appropriate and effective manner and by failing to consider her case from a gender perspective, the authorities allowed stereotypical perceptions to influence their reasoning in decision-making. In this regard, the Committee concluded that the authorities of the State party did not take timely and adequate measures and did not protect the author from violence and intimidation, in violation of their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The author of the communication is O.G. She claimed to be a victim of a violation by the Russian Federation of her rights under article 1, paragraphs "b" - "g" of article 2 of the Convention, which are considered in conjunction with the Committee's General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women and General Recommendation No. 28 (2010) The Committee on the basic obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, and articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The State party's compliance with its obligations to eliminate gender stereotypes in accordance with articles 2, 5 of the Convention must be assessed on the basis of the extent to which gender aspects were taken into account during the trial of the author of the communication. In this regard, the Committee noted that it took the District court 22 days instead of the 3 required by law to rule on the author's application to be granted protective measures. The Committee also noted with concern that between February and August 2013, the author filed formal complaints with the police 4 times and that all her complaints ended in a refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, despite the direct order of the district Prosecutor's office and the district court to interrogate K. and carry out all other necessary investigative procedures. To protect the author from violence by her former partner, the authorities have not taken any other measures, and more than 3 years after the events in question, the authorities still have not even subjected K. the interrogation. When the court eventually ruled on the above-mentioned petition, it referred to the refusal of the police to initiate criminal proceedings against K. and the absence of a "real threat" as the basis for refusing to provide protective measures, although a month earlier the same court had found the same refusal illegal and unfounded. The Committee drew attention to the fact that none of these facts were disputed by the State party and, in general, they indicated that, by failing to investigate the author's complaint about death threats and threats of violence in a prompt, appropriate and effective manner and by failing to consider her case from a gender perspective, the authorities allowed their reasoning in making decisions was influenced by stereotypical ideas. In this regard, the Committee concluded that the authorities of the State party did not take timely and adequate measures and did not protect the author from violence and intimidation in violation of their obligations under the Convention (paragraph 7.6 of the Opinion).
The Committee considered that the State party's failure to amend its legislation on domestic violence had a direct impact on the author's ability to seek justice and access effective remedies and protective measures. He also noted that the case showed that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to take all appropriate measures to change the social and cultural patterns of behavior of men and women in order to achieve the elimination of prejudice and the abolition of customs and all other practices that are based on the idea of inferiority or superiority of one of the sexes or the stereotypical role of men and women (paragraph 7.8 of the Opinions).
The Committee's conclusions: The manner in which the author's case is handled by the police, the Prosecutor's Office and the judicial authorities of the State party violates her rights under articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. In particular, the Committee noted that the author had suffered moral damage and had become a victim of prejudice. Left without the protection of the State, being periodically harassed by her abuser, she experienced fear and suffering and was re-traumatized when the State bodies that were supposed to act as her defender, especially the police, refused to provide her protection and did not recognize her as a victim (paragraph 7.7 of the Opinions).