A/HRC/17/30 the existing legal and policy frameworks and ensure a common ground of understanding for the protection of women’s human rights. These may also complement the existing legal and policy framework, for example, on reparations to women who have been subjected to violence37 and on a gender-sensitive interpretation of torture.38 63. Regarding impunity and the need to incorporate a gender perspective in the administration of criminal justice, in González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico,39 the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights determined that the longstanding failure to investigate, prosecute, or prevent sex crimes and other heinous crimes against women and girls in Ciudad Juárez over the past fifteen years violated the obligations of Mexico under the American Convention of Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women and international human rights norms, such as those contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It also stressed that the State is obliged to combat impunity by all available means and that the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims, who have the right to know the truth about what happened.40 64. In the "Cotton Field" case the Court ordered that the State should effectively conduct the criminal proceedings that were under way and, if applicable, those that might be opened in the future, to identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators and masterminds of the crimes committed against the victim, inter alia, by ensuring that the investigation should include a gender perspective; undertake specific lines of inquiry concerning sexual assault, which must involve lines of inquiry into the corresponding patterns in the area; regularly provide the victims' next of kin with information on progress in the investigation, and give them full access to the case files, and the investigation should be carried out by officials who are highly trained in similar cases and in dealing with victims of discrimination and gender-based violence.41 65. Regarding the State obligation to prevent violations and discrimination against women, in Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security,42 the Constitutional Court of South Africa noted the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that "States may … be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation".43 The Court further stressed that South Africa should prohibit all gender-based discrimination that has the effect or purpose of impairing the enjoyment by women of fundamental rights and freedoms and take reasonable and appropriate measures to prevent the violation of these rights.44 66. Regarding the State obligation to eliminate discrimination against women, in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India45 held that by ratifying the Convention, India had accepted legal obligations to eliminate discrimination against 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 See A/HRC/14/22. A/HRC/7/3. See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico, judgement of November 16, 2009. Ibid, para. 454. Ibid., para. 455 (b). Constitutional Court of South Africa, Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security, Case CCT 48/00, judgement of 16 August 2001. Ibid., para. 62, footnote 67. Ibid., para. 62. Supreme Court of India, Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, judgement of 13 August 1997. 13