5.  The applicants were born in 1982 and 2002 respectively and live in Chișinău. The second applicant is the daughter of the first applicant. 6.  The first applicant and M.M. married in 2001. M.M. became involved in gambling and started behaving aggressively towards the applicants. The first applicant filed for divorce, which she obtained on 25 February 2010. 7.  On 22 June 2010 the first applicant complained to the police that she was being verbally abused by M.M., following which he was fined administratively in the amount of 500 Moldovan lei (MDL − approximately 31 euros at the time). 8.  According to the applicants, on 5 September 2010 M.M. assaulted the first applicant; he also caused some bruises to the second applicant. A medical report dated 6 September 2010 established that the first applicant had two haematomas on her lower lip and a slight defect to her teeth on the left side. Another report produced on the same day established that the second applicant had two bruises on her right hand. The medical expert noted the applicants’ explanations that M. M. had punched the first applicant in the face and had pushed the second applicant to the ground, which had caused her to have pain in her arm. Each of the medical reports also stated that the examination had been carried out at the request of the Buiucani police. 9.  On 24 February 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal decided that the applicants had the right to a three-quarter share of the family apartment, leaving a one-quarter share to M.M. He allegedly became even more aggressive after that decision was adopted. 10.  On 21 March 2011 the first applicant complained again to the police that she was being physically and psychologically abused by her ex-husband. A medical report produced on the same day established that she had two haematomas on her right leg. M.M. was fined MDL 500. 11.  On 1 April 2011 the first applicant made another complaint concerning M.M. and applied for a protection order. 12.  On 5 April 2011 she asked the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal investigation against M.M. On 6 May 2011 a prosecutor rejected her request, finding that the medical evidence had confirmed that the injuries caused to the applicants were not considered damaging to their health, meaning that the offence of domestic violence, which required at least slight bodily harm or damage to health, had not been committed. The applicants challenged that decision before the Prosecutor General’s Office on 12 May 2011. 13.  On 11 April 2011 the Buiucani District Court issued a protection order, obliging M.M. to temporarily leave the family home and to avoid coming within 100m of the applicants or their places of work and study. However, the order was not sent to the relevant authorities and the first applicant did not obtain her copy until 22 April 2011. On that day she brought the protection order to the attention of the local police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Social Assistance Department. 14.  On 20 April 2011 a psychological report confirmed that the second applicant was experiencing anxiety and emotional distress. It recommended that she have no contact with her abusive father. 15.  Despite two visits by the police aimed at forcing M.M. to leave the family apartment (on 27 and 29 April 2011), M.M. refused to leave and the applicants had to stay several nights with their relatives. The last attempt to evict M.M. on 29 April 2011 failed, when he showed the police a decision of the Buiucani District Court of 29 April 2011 suspending the enforcement of its own decision of 11 April 2011 pending the examination of an appeal lodged by him. After that the police refused to take any action in respect of M.M. until a decision was reached by the courts. 16.  On 22 April 2011 the applicants asked to be referred to a refuge for victims of domestic violence, the staff of which established that the applicants had been damaged psychologically as a result of the violence they had suffered at the hands of M.M. 17.  On an unknown date the applicants appealed against the District Court decision of 29 April 2011. On 17 May 2011 the Public Order and Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Department”) also appealed against the decision, submitting that the court had been obliged by law to take a decision in respect of the applicants’ complaint within twenty-four hours, which it had manifestly failed to do. Moreover, the law provided that objections to a decision to issue a protection order could not suspend the enforcement of such an order; however, the court had suspended the enforcement of the order of 11 April 2011. Furthermore, the order had not been forwarded to the police and social services immediately, as was required by law. That failure to take a decision and to enforce the protection order eventually issued had put the applicants at risk of further ill-treatment. 18.  On 24 May 2011 a criminal investigation was initiated against M.M., who was accused of stealing jewellery from the first applicant. 19.  On the same day the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicants and the Department and allowed the appeal lodged by M.M., quashing the decision of 11 April 2011 and implicitly annulling the conditions of the protection order. The court found that the lower court had (i) failed to follow a special procedure to deal with the applicants’ application and had not specified the reasons for issuing the protection order, (ii) had not verified whether the alleged aggressor had been properly summoned to the court hearing, and (iii) had failed to obtain a report from social services and the police before issuing the protection order. Moreover, the lower court had not had the power to suspend the enforcement of the protection order as it had done. Therefore the decision of 29 April 2011 was also quashed. Since the lower court had failed to comply with the requirements of the law and had adopted an unlawful decision, the Court of Appeal ordered a re-examination of the case. 20.  At the applicant’s request, on 4 July 2011 the prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings against M. M. on charges of domestic violence. 21.  On 15 July 2011 the Buiucani District Court rejected the applicants’ application for a protection order. It found that the second applicant had explained that she loved both parents equally; that the father had said horrible things and tried to make them leave the apartment; and that there had been instances when her father had hit her mother and also when her mother had scratched her father or threatened him with a knife. The court noted that the first applicant had submitted that M.M. had been verbally abusive towards her, but held that there was insufficient evidence to back up her claims. It concluded that there was no evidence of any domestic violence having taken place. 22.  On 29 September 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal issued a protection order in favour of the applicants, similar to that of 11 April 2011. It was officially served on M. M. on 6 October 2011. On 28 December 2011 a police officer confirmed that the order had been complied with. 23.  On 30 September 2011 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation against M. M. On 30 December 2011 that decision was annulled by a higher-ranking prosecutor. 24.  On 27 February 2012 a prosecutor proposed to discontinue the proceedings concerning the alleged theft of the jewellery. The parties did not inform the Court of any other developments in the two criminal cases, except for a statement by the applicants that in October 2012 they were told that the investigation into their allegations of domestic violence was ongoing. 25.  The relevant provisions of the domestic law and the relevant international materials were summarised in Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 3564/11, §§ 29-37, 28 May 2013). 26.  In addition, in its Report “Violence against Women in the Family in the Republic of Moldova” (2011) the National Statistics Bureau of the Republic of Moldova[1], provided statistical data concerning violence against women committed by their husbands or life partners. It follows from that report, inter alia that, depending on their age, 41% to 52% of the women interviewed had suffered physical or sexual violence, while 50% to 66% had suffered psychological violence (page 120), with a total prevalence of victims of some form of domestic violence of 63% (page 79). The report also concluded that violence against women was deeply rooted and widespread in society and was repeated down the generations. The abuser’s conduct was accepted by society and served as a means of control over the women. In contrast to violence within the family, only 6% of the women interviewed declared that they had been subjected to a form of violence by persons other than their husbands or life partners. Most of the cases of such reported violence had been caused by other male members of the victim’s family (fathers, stepfathers). The report also found that in most cases domestic violence was not a single incident, but took the form of repeated assault. It was also revealed that a certain percentage of violence against women went unreported, either because the victim considered that she could handle it alone or because of fear and shame. The report concluded that violence against women was rooted in their inequality with men, and that there was widespread social acceptance of the phenomenon. Less than half of the victims interviewed were aware of the legislation aimed at protecting them from domestic violence (Law no. 45, see paragraph 30 in Eremia, cited above). Of the women who were aware of the legislation, less than half believed it was efficient. The majority of victims of domestic violence preferred to call the police rather than doctors or social workers, but they were also the least satisfied with the manner in which the police acted on their complaints.