A/HRC/23/49 violation of article 6 of the Convention. 17 It is argued that such decisions/opinions reflect that “a state may be liable under international law not only for its officials’ actions but also for its officials’ inaction. It is unlawful for the state: to refrain from assistance where assistance is so clearly required; to fail to investigate and thereby guarantee women’s rights; and, to discriminate in the manner in which it enforces human rights (even where such discrimination is not intentional).” 18 26. In 2010, the Committee provided further interpretive guidance on State responsibility with the addition of general recommendation No. 28 (2010). It broadly reframed the principle of State responsibility under the Convention as a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil women’s right to non-discrimination and to the enjoyment of equality. 27. In paragraph 18 of its general comment No. 2 (2007), the Committee against Torture argues that due diligence generally, and specifically as far as violence against women is concerned, occurs when State authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable ground to believe that acts of torture or illtreatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention. It also argues that the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. Since the failure of the State to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity, the State’s indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission. The Committee has applied this principle to States parties’ failure to prevent and protect victims from genderbased violence, such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking. 28. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was adopted by the General Assembly in 1993. It reflects provisions found in Committee on the Elimination of Violence against Women general recommendation No. 19, but provides a more thorough and explicit statement on violence against women. The Declaration incorporates State responsibility to act within a due diligence standard, which requires States to “prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons” (art. 4 generally and 4 (c) specifically). 29. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action has a list of due diligence steps to be taken by States, including to: adopt and/or implement and periodically review and analyse legislation to ensure its effectiveness in eliminating violence against women, emphasizing the prevention of violence and the prosecution of offenders; and take measures to ensure the protection of women subjected to violence, access to just and effective remedies, including compensation and indemnification and healing of victims, and rehabilitation of perpetrators.19 30. In its resolution 1325 (2000), the Security Council emphasized the responsibility of States to end impunity and hold accountable those responsible for war crimes concerning sexual and other types of violence against women. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United 17 18 19 Communication No. 15/2007, Zheng v. Netherlands, decision on admissibility, 22 January 2007. Bonita Meyersfeld, “Developments in International Law and Domestic Violence”, INTERIGHTS Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 3 (2011), p. 110. Platform for action, para. 124 (d). See also para. 124 (c) and (i). 9