A/HRC/26/38 potentially vulnerable, and from which all deserve protection. This suggests that male victims of violence require, and deserve, comparable resources to those afforded to female victims, thereby ignoring the reality that violence against men does not occur as a result of pervasive inequality and discrimination, and also that it is neither systemic nor pandemic in the way that violence against women undisputably is. The shift to neutrality favours a more pragmatic and politically palatable understanding of gender, that is, as simply a euphemism for “men and women”, rather than as a system of domination of men over women. Violence against women cannot be analysed on a case-by-case basis in isolation of the individual, institutional and structural factors that govern and shape the lives of women. Such factors demand gender-specific approaches to ensure an equality of outcomes for women. Attempts to combine or synthesize all forms of violence into a “gender neutral” framework, tend to result in a depoliticized or diluted discourse, which abandons the transformative agenda. A different set of normative and practical measures is required to respond to and prevent violence against women and, equally importantly, to achieve the international law obligation of substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality. 62. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and various regional treaties have explicitly articulated international understanding of the issue, and have reaffirmed and acknowledged that violence against women is both a cause and a consequence of discrimination, patriarchal dominance and control; that it is structural in nature; and that it works as a social mechanism that forces women into a subordinate position, in both the public and private spheres. CEDAW has criticized States that have moved to the gender-neutral approach.39 In addition to gender specificity in legislation, policies and programmes, it is argued that “where possible, services should be run by independent and experienced women’s non-governmental organizations providing genderspecific, empowering and comprehensive support to women survivors of violence, based on feminist principles”.40 Specificity is also mandated in the relevant regional human rights instruments on women and violence. 2. Persisting public/private dichotomy in responses to violence against women 63. Another manifestation of inequality and discrimination in responses to violence against women is the public/private dichotomy, which ultimately relegates women to the private sphere. This dichotomy is reinforced by the gender pay gap; the “double burden” of production and reproduction, which often limits the autonomy of women; and, in the most overtly patriarchal societies, systems of guardianship or legal instruments consciously designed to limit women’s access to the public sphere. Even in societies in which women make sustained and significant contributions to the workforce, their roles in public life tend to be curtailed, and issues considered to be of particular concern to women are often assumed to be private. Violence against women is no exception, and the belief that personal relationships are not a matter of public concern continues to affect responses in the prevention, reporting and prosecution of cases of violence. 3. Accountability and impunity: failure of States to act with due diligence to eliminate violence against women 64. In her 2013 report to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the continuing challenges of failures in relation to States’ obligation to act with due 39 40 See reports of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, for example, CEDAW/C/NLD/CO/4; CEDAW/C/POL/CO/6; CEDAW/C/FIN/CO/6; CEDAW/C/UK/CO/6. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, Division for the Advancement of Women, Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women (New York, 2009), sect. 3.6.1. 17