A/HRC/17/22 children after she reported years of violence and threats to the police – was the first case where the Court applied the notion of due diligence to domestic violence. The Court deemed the State responsible for failure of the police to take action. In Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, the Court acknowledged the limitations of private prosecution of domestic violence, confirming domestic violence as a matter of public concern and the State’s responsibility for failing to impose sanctions. In Branko Tomasic and others v. Croatia, the Court confirmed that the State had the obligation to protect the victims, noting the failure to provide adequate mental health care to the perpetrator. In the landmark case Opuz v. Turkey, the Court found a breach of the principle of due diligence, arguing that prosecution should have continued even in the face of repeated withdrawal of complaints from the alleged victim and confirmed gender-based violence as discrimination. In the most recent case of A v. Croatia concerning prolonged domestic violence and the effectiveness of protective orders, the Court found that the State’s failure to effectively enforce these measures violated the convention. 23. Ms. Coomber also referred to three rape cases before the Court. In C. R. and S. W. v. the United Kingdom, the Court underlined the State duty to protect women, including by criminalizing marital rape. Aydin v. Turkey confirmed that the crime of rape against a female detainee constitutes torture prohibited by the convention. Finally, in M.C. v. Bulgaria, the Court decided that physical resistance from the victim should not be a necessary requirement for convictions for rape, the focus lying on the lack of consent as a constituent element of the offence. Ms. Coomber concluded that with such limited jurisprudence, the discrepancy between the European Court of Human Rights case law on rape and domestic violence and the challenges and experiences of women on the ground was immense. She highlighted the challenge of finding women prepared to pursue litigation in light of the length of judicial proceedings and limited access to justice. Ms. Coomber pleaded for the strengthening of legal aid programmes, investments in the training of police and prosecutors to work with victims of violence against women, and a gender balance in the criminal justice system. 24. Ms. Rouhana talked about her participation in the drafting of a new law to protect women from family violence in Lebanon. She explained that authority regarding family law was delegated to the many different recognized religious groups that shared the same patriarchal background. She added that the penal code still discriminated against women in many aspects and tolerated harmful practices, such as providing for mitigating excuses for crimes committed under the pretext of honour, or allowing for marital rape. Domestic violence was also not specifically addressed in the penal code, providing for a context of unlimited authority of men over women. 25. Ms. Rouhana said the process of drafting this law started in 2007 as a result of collaborative efforts of a committee of experts from the internal security forces, judges and lawyers, and civil society representatives. After two years of continuous advocacy and lobbying, the draft law was approved by the Council of Ministers in April 2010 and was pending approbation of the joint Parliament Committees and the general assembly of the Parliament. She said the law was designed to criminalize practices harmful to women but tolerated by traditional or religious cultures, and to extend protection to all familial relationships and include preventive, protective and punitive aspects. 26. Ms. Rouhana finally stressed that, even if the law was approved, there would still be major challenges to its implementation, mainly the unstable political and security situation in Lebanon, which had a negative impact on social issues in general and women’s issues in particular. Financial resources would be essential to implement the law effectively. However she recognized that much more needed to be done on a more general level, such as dealing with legal illiteracy and poor service delivery, change of attitudes, and educating women on their own rights. She also acknowledged the shortfalls of the draft law itself; i.e. 7