A/HRC/23/49 vulnerability perspective, and must also apply a social model of disability, as opposed to a medical or charity model, within their prevention and response work. 9. In March 2013, the Special Rapporteur participated in the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women. She presented an oral statement on her activities for the past two years; convened two side events, on gender-related killings of women and on violence against women in custodial settings; and participated in a number of events organized by United Nations agencies and civil society organizations. D. Other activities 10. The Special Rapporteur participated in a number of conferences, workshops and side events on diverse topics related to her mandate. III. State responsibility for eliminating violence against women A. Introduction 11. As a general rule, State responsibility is based on acts or omissions committed either by State actors or by actors whose actions are attributable to the State.1 A long-standing exception to this rule is that a State may incur responsibility where there is a failure to exercise due diligence to prevent or respond to certain acts or omissions of non-State actors.2 In the seventeenth century, Grotius articulated principles that can be seen as a precursor to contemporary notions of State responsibility. The principle of patientia would hold a community or ruler responsible where there is knowledge of a crime committed by a subject, but there is a failure to prevent it in circumstances where it can and should be prevented.3 In the early twentieth century, Oppenheim advanced the theory of vicarious State liability, in which a State is responsible for acts of private individuals in its territory where it has failed to disown or disapprove of the impugned conduct.4 Triepel articulated a doctrine of State responsibility that would hold States responsible in circumstances where they fail to exercise due diligence.5 12. The last 25 years has seen developments in legal rules governing State responsibility in general and due diligence in particular as regards the obligations of States to protect individuals within their territory or jurisdiction from human rights violations. The modern approach to State responsibility is set out in the International Law Commission draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. Articles 2 and 12 broadly provide that a State is responsible for an act or omission attributable to it under international law where the conduct breaches an international obligation of that State and when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character. The standard of fault that applies, whether intent, negligence or the failure to exercise due diligence, depends on the applicable international 1 2 3 4 5 4 See the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, general commentary, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II (Part Two) and corrigendum, para. 77. Amos Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law (New York, 1918), p. 162. Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (1922). L. Oppenheim, International Law (1912), p. 218. See Heinrich Triepel, Droit International et Droit Interne (Paris, 1920).