A/HRC/23/49 sanctions that are imposed to restrain and deter an offender (for example, psychiatric treatment) are actually enforced.40 The failure of the judiciary to impose statutorily mandated sanctions for specific offences can also contravene the due diligence obligation.41 Judicial proceedings aimed at preventing violence against women must be finalized within a reasonable period of time. 42 75. The due diligence standard requires that remedies not only formally exist, but that they are available and effective.43 The due diligence obligation in respect of remedies cannot be just about returning women to the situation they were in before the individual instance of violence, but instead should strive to have a transformative potential. This implies that remedies should aspire, to the extent possible, to subvert instead of reinforce pre-existing patterns of cross-cutting structural subordination, gender hierarchies, systemic marginalization and structural inequalities that may be at the root cause of the violence that women experience. As the Special Rapporteur argued in her 2010 report, the notion of a right to reparation is located within the framework of the law of remedies and can serve both individual and societal goals, the underlying purposes of which include corrective justice, deterrence, retribution and restorative justice (A/HRC/14/22, para. 12). Reparations should include a gender perspective, more so when dealing with women victims of acts of discrimination and violence, including in the spheres of satisfaction, rehabilitation, guarantees of nonrepetition and compensation.44 76. The foundation for dealing with violence against women is laid down by the general principles that define the nature of human rights, i.e., universality, inalienability, equality, non-discrimination, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness; and the principles related to the respect, protect and fulfil goals of human rights. Thus participation, inclusion, the rule of law, and accountability should be core values underpinning the State’s response when it acts with due diligence to meet its obligations to eliminate violence against women. 77. The State responsibility to act with due diligence must continue to evolve in a cumulative and inclusive approach. Relevant factors can include: measuring States’ obligations and duties to prevent violence; ensuring both State and non-State actor accountability; and addressing root causes of violence and the sources of discrimination that intersect in the actual experiences of women. Eliminating violence against women requires a multi-stakeholder approach to accountability that includes monitoring State and non-State actors for compliance and including them as direct duty bearers for prevention, protection and change. Human rights due diligence requires an investigation and evaluation to assess whether universally accepted human rights principles apply in a State’s own behaviour and in a State’s monitoring of third party behaviour – be they individuals or organizations. 40 41 42 43 44 See ECtHR, A. v. Croatia, application No. 55164/08, judgement of 14 October, paras. 78-79. See ECtHR, Hajduová v. Slovakia, application No. 2660/03, judgement of 30 November 2010, para. 52. See ECtHR, Kalucza v. Hungary, application No. 57693/10, judgement of 24 April 2012, paras. 64-67. IACHR, Smith and Armendatriz et al. v. United States, Report No. 81/10, case No. 12.562 (2010), para. 62; Gonzales and others v. United States, decision of admissibility of 24 July 2007, para. 42; IACHR, “Access to justice”, para. 26. González et al., para. 446 ff. 21